WEBVTT - 2020 NFL Futures and Oscars Predictions (Ep. 48)

0:00:10.600 --> 0:00:13.440
<v Speaker 1>Hey there everyone, Welcome back to a very special edition

0:00:13.520 --> 0:00:16.640
<v Speaker 1>of the Betting Pros NFL podcast. I'm your host, Dan Harris.

0:00:16.720 --> 0:00:19.080
<v Speaker 1>You can find me on Twitter at Dan Harris AD.

0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:21.479
<v Speaker 1>In case you missed it, the Super Bowl is over.

0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:24.639
<v Speaker 1>The twenty nineteen season is officially closed, which means it

0:00:24.720 --> 0:00:27.120
<v Speaker 1>is time to take an early look at the futures

0:00:27.240 --> 0:00:30.040
<v Speaker 1>for the twenty twenty season. Now, look, the twenty twenty

0:00:30.080 --> 0:00:31.760
<v Speaker 1>season is a long way from now. We just got

0:00:31.760 --> 0:00:34.680
<v Speaker 1>past the biggest gambling event of the year. So you know,

0:00:34.680 --> 0:00:36.600
<v Speaker 1>when you try to move on from something like you

0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:38.919
<v Speaker 1>want to cut down on coffee and you don't go

0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:42.000
<v Speaker 1>from three cups a day to zero, you wean yourself off, right,

0:00:42.040 --> 0:00:45.560
<v Speaker 1>So super Bowl's over. Rather than doing nothing for months,

0:00:45.560 --> 0:00:47.920
<v Speaker 1>you can wean yourself off the gambling high that you

0:00:48.000 --> 0:00:50.680
<v Speaker 1>got when the under on Patrick Mahomes rushing yards hit.

0:00:51.200 --> 0:00:53.440
<v Speaker 1>There's a giant event on Sunday one that a ton

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:55.960
<v Speaker 1>of people in America will be watching and you can

0:00:56.000 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 1>wager on it. It's called the Oscars. So first we're

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:00.360
<v Speaker 1>going to take a look at some future for the

0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:03.720
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty NFL season with Ian McMillan, a writer over

0:01:03.760 --> 0:01:05.920
<v Speaker 1>at Odds shark dot Com. And then we're going to

0:01:05.959 --> 0:01:09.200
<v Speaker 1>bring in a special guest and noted oscar expert Kerry Kerpin,

0:01:09.240 --> 0:01:12.000
<v Speaker 1>the CEO of Likable Media, to break down some of

0:01:12.040 --> 0:01:14.959
<v Speaker 1>the odds on the major Academy awards. Let's get started

0:01:15.000 --> 0:01:17.360
<v Speaker 1>here with Ian, who you can find over on Twitter

0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:22.399
<v Speaker 1>at Ian macOS. That's I, Ai, n Ian. Did you

0:01:22.560 --> 0:01:24.759
<v Speaker 1>have the over or the under on Patrick Mahomes rushing

0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:26.600
<v Speaker 1>yards in the Super Bowl, Because it seems like everyone

0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:28.080
<v Speaker 1>in America had a piece of that bet.

0:01:28.840 --> 0:01:29.960
<v Speaker 2>No, I did not take that.

0:01:30.000 --> 0:01:33.320
<v Speaker 3>One of my coworkers, though, Joe Osborn, a odd shark,

0:01:33.400 --> 0:01:35.520
<v Speaker 3>had the over on it, so he was pretty heart

0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:37.960
<v Speaker 3>broken with how that prop ended.

0:01:38.160 --> 0:01:41.959
<v Speaker 1>I'll be honest, I had the under, and I just

0:01:42.080 --> 0:01:43.319
<v Speaker 1>I had thrown it out. I think it was at

0:01:43.360 --> 0:01:45.160
<v Speaker 1>forty three in the over under. I think I had

0:01:45.200 --> 0:01:47.840
<v Speaker 1>it at thirty and a half or something. That's not

0:01:47.960 --> 0:01:50.920
<v Speaker 1>a bet that happens. That is the worst beat I've

0:01:50.960 --> 0:01:54.360
<v Speaker 1>ever seen in any capacity for any bet. If you

0:01:54.400 --> 0:01:56.280
<v Speaker 1>had the over on it, I will say that I

0:01:56.320 --> 0:02:00.000
<v Speaker 1>read that points bet to their credit. I think basically

0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:02.880
<v Speaker 1>refunded the money for over under, so that's good. I

0:02:02.920 --> 0:02:05.040
<v Speaker 1>don't know if for the people who took the overs.

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:08.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if everybody else did that, but it's

0:02:08.800 --> 0:02:11.519
<v Speaker 1>really the worst beat of all time for any sports.

0:02:11.520 --> 0:02:12.560
<v Speaker 1>I've never seen anything like that.

0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:13.359
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's terror.

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:15.800
<v Speaker 3>He didn't even take normal knees like he took extra

0:02:16.120 --> 0:02:18.520
<v Speaker 3>yards that if he just took normal like the one

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:21.639
<v Speaker 3>or two yard kneel downs, then course of.

0:02:21.600 --> 0:02:24.280
<v Speaker 1>Course he had a seven yard kneel down. I've never

0:02:24.320 --> 0:02:26.880
<v Speaker 1>seen that before, and I get it running to kill

0:02:26.880 --> 0:02:29.320
<v Speaker 1>some time off the clock. But still, man, as someone

0:02:29.320 --> 0:02:31.520
<v Speaker 1>who had bet the under, I was not disappointed, but

0:02:31.639 --> 0:02:35.280
<v Speaker 1>still I certainly felt bad for the large majority of

0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:37.560
<v Speaker 1>people who had the over, because again, that was that

0:02:37.680 --> 0:02:40.640
<v Speaker 1>was not only a very highly bet prop, but it

0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:43.240
<v Speaker 1>was also something where the vast majority of money came

0:02:43.280 --> 0:02:46.079
<v Speaker 1>in on the over. So that's a tough beat. But again,

0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:47.880
<v Speaker 1>we move on. So let's talk about ways to make

0:02:47.960 --> 0:02:50.200
<v Speaker 1>up for it. Let's talk about some futures. At this point,

0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:52.320
<v Speaker 1>there aren't any books as far as I can tell,

0:02:52.360 --> 0:02:55.160
<v Speaker 1>with divisional winners, so let's just break down the conference

0:02:55.200 --> 0:02:57.360
<v Speaker 1>and Super Bowl futures. All right, let's start with the

0:02:57.400 --> 0:03:00.440
<v Speaker 1>AFC winner. I'm just gonna list out the consensus odds

0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:02.560
<v Speaker 1>for you and our listeners, and then you can talk

0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:05.280
<v Speaker 1>about your favorites. Okay, Now, not surprisingly, the Chiefs, the

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 1>Super Bowl winners, are the favorites next year to win

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:10.760
<v Speaker 1>the AFC. It's not a big price, it's merely plus

0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:14.079
<v Speaker 1>three hundred. Then you've got the Ravens close behind at

0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:16.440
<v Speaker 1>plus four hundred, little bit of a drop to the

0:03:16.440 --> 0:03:19.000
<v Speaker 1>Patriots at plus seven hundred, a little bit of another

0:03:19.080 --> 0:03:21.640
<v Speaker 1>drop to the Titans and the Steelers at plus ten

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:24.600
<v Speaker 1>to fifty, and then you're really going downhill. The Browns

0:03:24.600 --> 0:03:28.320
<v Speaker 1>and Texans at plus fifteen hundred, the Bills at plus

0:03:28.360 --> 0:03:32.040
<v Speaker 1>sixteen hundred, the Colts at plus eighteen hundred, the Chargers,

0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:35.040
<v Speaker 1>the Raiders and the Broncos at plus twenty two hundred,

0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:38.280
<v Speaker 1>the Jets at plus three thousand, the Jaguars at plus

0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:41.120
<v Speaker 1>thirty five hundred, followed by the poor little Bengals and

0:03:41.160 --> 0:03:43.680
<v Speaker 1>Dolphins at plus forty five hundred. So what do you think?

0:03:43.920 --> 0:03:46.000
<v Speaker 1>Do we push all our chips in on the Raiders

0:03:46.040 --> 0:03:48.640
<v Speaker 1>at plus twenty two hundred, hope that Tom Brady lands

0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:50.000
<v Speaker 1>there or what's the play here?

0:03:51.040 --> 0:03:52.080
<v Speaker 2>No? I don't think so.

0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:54.560
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I think the NFC is going to be

0:03:54.600 --> 0:03:56.839
<v Speaker 3>a lot more of an interesting conversation because I think

0:03:56.880 --> 0:03:59.280
<v Speaker 3>the AFC is just so top heavy. I mean, obviously

0:03:59.320 --> 0:04:02.000
<v Speaker 3>a million different things can happen between now and Week

0:04:02.040 --> 0:04:04.200
<v Speaker 3>one of the twenty twenty season with the draft, free.

0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:06.200
<v Speaker 2>Agency, who knows what kind of trades might get done.

0:04:07.000 --> 0:04:09.280
<v Speaker 3>But I mean I think it's it's got to be

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:11.360
<v Speaker 3>the Chief so that that are going to dominate the

0:04:11.400 --> 0:04:14.000
<v Speaker 3>AFC again. Even the Chiefs regular season, I thought they

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:16.479
<v Speaker 3>didn't have a great regular season. I think they're probably

0:04:16.480 --> 0:04:19.320
<v Speaker 3>gonna have a better regular season next year. The Ravens

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:21.839
<v Speaker 3>at plus four hundred, I don't really like them because

0:04:21.920 --> 0:04:23.520
<v Speaker 3>I mean, they were kind of a team that just

0:04:23.560 --> 0:04:27.119
<v Speaker 3>exploded over nowhere. They're obviously the best regular season team,

0:04:27.520 --> 0:04:29.800
<v Speaker 3>but I'm not confident enough that they're gonna be able

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:32.400
<v Speaker 3>to repeat that amazing performance they had this year. So

0:04:32.800 --> 0:04:35.520
<v Speaker 3>as boring and as square of a bet it might be,

0:04:35.640 --> 0:04:37.520
<v Speaker 3>I think really the only bet to make in this

0:04:37.600 --> 0:04:40.800
<v Speaker 3>situation would be the chief at plus three hundred. I mean,

0:04:40.839 --> 0:04:44.039
<v Speaker 3>the only other name that I would even interest me

0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:45.960
<v Speaker 3>a little bit would maybe be the Bills at plus

0:04:46.000 --> 0:04:48.080
<v Speaker 3>sixteen hundred if they can get a couple extra pieces.

0:04:48.120 --> 0:04:50.039
<v Speaker 2>And Josh Allen has a good season next year.

0:04:50.080 --> 0:04:52.120
<v Speaker 3>But I don't really see anyone else given to the

0:04:52.160 --> 0:04:53.840
<v Speaker 3>Chiefs a run for the money unless we see the

0:04:53.960 --> 0:04:56.039
<v Speaker 3>Ravens have another great year like they did last year.

0:04:56.200 --> 0:04:59.599
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, the Bills stuck out to me just because the price,

0:04:59.720 --> 0:05:02.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, plus sixteen hundred, those are fairly good odds.

0:05:02.400 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 1>You saw Josh Allen take another step in his second year.

0:05:06.480 --> 0:05:08.920
<v Speaker 1>The play calling was really creative. If they can add

0:05:08.960 --> 0:05:12.600
<v Speaker 1>a few more offensive skill players with that defense, they

0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:14.680
<v Speaker 1>could be a scared team. But you know, don't you

0:05:14.760 --> 0:05:16.760
<v Speaker 1>think a lot? First of all, are you just assuming

0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:19.039
<v Speaker 1>that Tom Brady returns to the Patriots? By the way,

0:05:19.080 --> 0:05:20.599
<v Speaker 1>is that how you're analyzing everything?

0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:23.680
<v Speaker 3>Yes, I am, because there's even there's even a book

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:25.840
<v Speaker 3>that's offering odds on whether or not Tom Brady's going

0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:27.600
<v Speaker 3>back to the Patriots. I think he's like minus two

0:05:27.680 --> 0:05:28.960
<v Speaker 3>hundred to go back to the Patriots.

0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:30.320
<v Speaker 1>So yeah, most.

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:32.760
<v Speaker 3>Likely, especially with that Super Bowl that weird Super Bowl

0:05:32.760 --> 0:05:35.360
<v Speaker 3>commercial announcement that he kind of have made. So I

0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:37.120
<v Speaker 3>think he's going to be back on the Patriots.

0:05:37.200 --> 0:05:39.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeh, Yeah, I despise that, you know, the the early

0:05:40.080 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Instagram post, you know, to make everybody think about it.

0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:45.360
<v Speaker 1>But again, Jets fan living in New England, I won't

0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:47.800
<v Speaker 1>harp on it, so it's tough. Well, let me ad something.

0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:50.120
<v Speaker 1>If he is coming back, why not the Pats at

0:05:50.120 --> 0:05:53.320
<v Speaker 1>plus seven hundred, I mean they had nothing this year whatsoever.

0:05:53.360 --> 0:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Their receiving corps was decimated. You have to assume if

0:05:57.000 --> 0:05:59.200
<v Speaker 1>he's going to come back there, he's going to do

0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:01.320
<v Speaker 1>it based on the guarantee that they're going to give

0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:04.480
<v Speaker 1>him a lot more help on offense. So what about them?

0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:06.560
<v Speaker 1>Any value on them at plus seven hundred? Then if

0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:07.880
<v Speaker 1>Brady is coming back, I.

0:06:07.800 --> 0:06:10.320
<v Speaker 3>Mean, if you think that the Patriots are going to

0:06:10.320 --> 0:06:12.839
<v Speaker 3>get weapons this offseason, then getting them at plus seven

0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:14.880
<v Speaker 3>hundred wouldn't be a bad bet now, because if they

0:06:14.920 --> 0:06:17.320
<v Speaker 3>do get weapons, their odds will probably, you know, go up.

0:06:17.920 --> 0:06:19.599
<v Speaker 3>One of the big names that I've kind of seen

0:06:19.640 --> 0:06:21.479
<v Speaker 3>around a little bit is Greg Olsen. He's knock gonna

0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:23.880
<v Speaker 3>be with the Panthers anymore. So, I mean they could

0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:26.039
<v Speaker 3>use a tight end. There's one weapon right there that

0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:28.800
<v Speaker 3>would seem like a pretty easy fit into the Patriots scheme.

0:06:28.960 --> 0:06:31.400
<v Speaker 2>So I mean, yeah, if if you want.

0:06:31.480 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I absolutely despise the Patriots, so I would

0:06:34.240 --> 0:06:36.400
<v Speaker 3>never bet on them to win, to win the Super Bowl,

0:06:36.480 --> 0:06:37.320
<v Speaker 3>or to win the AFC.

0:06:37.920 --> 0:06:38.839
<v Speaker 2>But plus seven hundred.

0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:41.239
<v Speaker 3>If they do get the weapons, then now would probably

0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:42.440
<v Speaker 3>be a good time to bet on them. But I

0:06:42.440 --> 0:06:44.800
<v Speaker 3>mean that's a big if if they are going to

0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:47.240
<v Speaker 3>get the weapons that tom Brady's asking for, and then

0:06:47.320 --> 0:06:50.080
<v Speaker 3>even if he does, we saw tom Brady take a

0:06:50.120 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 3>little bit of a step back this year. Was that

0:06:51.680 --> 0:06:53.880
<v Speaker 3>an anomaly because he didn't have the weapons or was

0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:56.359
<v Speaker 3>he showing his age a little bit? So's there's some

0:06:56.520 --> 0:06:58.760
<v Speaker 3>question marks with the Patriots that would make me hesitant

0:06:58.760 --> 0:06:59.400
<v Speaker 3>to bet on them.

0:06:59.279 --> 0:06:59.960
<v Speaker 2>At this point in time.

0:07:00.120 --> 0:07:01.920
<v Speaker 1>Well, well, let me tell you something that I think

0:07:01.960 --> 0:07:05.599
<v Speaker 1>you're doing life completely wrong. Okay, because I too, as

0:07:05.640 --> 0:07:09.039
<v Speaker 1>I talk about, often despise the Patriots. Just again, Jets

0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:11.440
<v Speaker 1>fan living in New England married into a Patriots fan.

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:14.160
<v Speaker 1>It has been my nightmare for several years. So I

0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:16.800
<v Speaker 1>always throw a little bit of money on them to

0:07:16.960 --> 0:07:19.960
<v Speaker 1>both win the AFC and the Super Bowl, just because

0:07:19.960 --> 0:07:21.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm like, if I'm going to be miserable, at least

0:07:21.840 --> 0:07:23.600
<v Speaker 1>I need to profit off it a little bit. So

0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:25.960
<v Speaker 1>the fact that you hate them really shouldn't impact that.

0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:28.120
<v Speaker 1>The second point that I'll make with them. Is that

0:07:28.600 --> 0:07:31.360
<v Speaker 1>to me? I really think at this point that Brady

0:07:31.640 --> 0:07:34.680
<v Speaker 1>he does have leverage at this point, and I think

0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:38.440
<v Speaker 1>it's very much gonna be I am not returning unless

0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:40.480
<v Speaker 1>you give me the weapons, and I think they will

0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:42.320
<v Speaker 1>give him the weapons. So I think if you're assuming

0:07:42.360 --> 0:07:44.840
<v Speaker 1>Brady returns, I really do think it's based on the

0:07:44.880 --> 0:07:47.280
<v Speaker 1>promise that they're going to give him somebody to come

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>back to. Let me throw a couple of other names

0:07:49.160 --> 0:07:50.680
<v Speaker 1>out here, okay, and let me just see what you

0:07:50.720 --> 0:07:54.240
<v Speaker 1>think of these. Yep, what about the Browns. I know

0:07:54.400 --> 0:07:58.200
<v Speaker 1>this was a disaster. Of course, this whole year basically

0:07:58.320 --> 0:08:00.480
<v Speaker 1>was blue up in smoke. But you know they're at

0:08:00.480 --> 0:08:04.600
<v Speaker 1>plus fifteen hundred. Stefanski comes in. He's gonna help that offense. Obviously,

0:08:04.640 --> 0:08:06.680
<v Speaker 1>it couldn't get any worse than it was. They'll have

0:08:06.720 --> 0:08:08.760
<v Speaker 1>a healthy old El Beckham junior, who you know, you

0:08:08.800 --> 0:08:11.120
<v Speaker 1>assume he's gonna stay. They've got a top ten pick,

0:08:11.240 --> 0:08:13.720
<v Speaker 1>They've got a boatload of cap space. I mean, everybody

0:08:13.880 --> 0:08:15.840
<v Speaker 1>was pretty excited about them coming into the air. I

0:08:15.840 --> 0:08:17.600
<v Speaker 1>think they're over under on wins. Might have been nine

0:08:17.640 --> 0:08:20.280
<v Speaker 1>and a half. Obviously a disaster, but they do have

0:08:20.320 --> 0:08:22.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot of talented pieces with the new coaching staff,

0:08:22.720 --> 0:08:25.400
<v Speaker 1>with Beckham healthy, any chance you think that you can

0:08:25.400 --> 0:08:28.000
<v Speaker 1>find some value on the Browns at plus fifteen.

0:08:27.760 --> 0:08:31.120
<v Speaker 2>Hundred, I mean, I don't think so.

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:32.840
<v Speaker 3>I think I would have to see the Browns play

0:08:32.880 --> 0:08:34.760
<v Speaker 3>next season before I put any kind of bet on them.

0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:36.880
<v Speaker 3>It really does come down to how good of a

0:08:36.920 --> 0:08:38.840
<v Speaker 3>coaching job the new guy will do. I don't think

0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:40.880
<v Speaker 3>that that was a great hire by them. I think

0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:42.600
<v Speaker 3>so Law would have been a much better choice, but

0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:45.920
<v Speaker 3>they wanted to get this guy right after that divisional

0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:48.800
<v Speaker 3>round game, So I think it really does come down

0:08:48.840 --> 0:08:51.240
<v Speaker 3>to him. And with the guys that they have on

0:08:51.280 --> 0:08:53.839
<v Speaker 3>the Browns team, it's hard to coach them because if

0:08:53.840 --> 0:08:55.000
<v Speaker 3>things start falling apart.

0:08:55.080 --> 0:08:56.840
<v Speaker 2>We saw this this past season.

0:08:56.880 --> 0:08:59.520
<v Speaker 3>If things start falling apart a little tiny bit, they

0:08:59.600 --> 0:09:04.640
<v Speaker 3>just they implode. And so because of that reason, I

0:09:04.679 --> 0:09:06.560
<v Speaker 3>can't trust the Browns at all. If they get off

0:09:06.640 --> 0:09:08.280
<v Speaker 3>to a good start and you see a little bit

0:09:08.600 --> 0:09:11.360
<v Speaker 3>of momentum and like as if they were playing like

0:09:11.400 --> 0:09:13.120
<v Speaker 3>a team, then maybe it's a team you want to

0:09:13.120 --> 0:09:15.720
<v Speaker 3>take a shot on after the first couple of weeks.

0:09:15.760 --> 0:09:18.560
<v Speaker 3>But I need to see something from them before I

0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:20.320
<v Speaker 3>could place any kind of futures bet from them.

0:09:20.520 --> 0:09:20.679
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

0:09:20.720 --> 0:09:23.319
<v Speaker 1>I think the one thing that really does not change

0:09:23.360 --> 0:09:25.080
<v Speaker 1>from this past year is that they have a group

0:09:25.120 --> 0:09:27.840
<v Speaker 1>of personalities where things go south, it's gonna go south.

0:09:27.840 --> 0:09:30.240
<v Speaker 1>And I believe it was Adam Burke who was on

0:09:30.320 --> 0:09:32.640
<v Speaker 1>and he's a Browns fan. We talked about it in

0:09:32.679 --> 0:09:36.120
<v Speaker 1>the preseason last year about how he was not on them.

0:09:36.320 --> 0:09:38.440
<v Speaker 1>You know, they were the most bad team I believe

0:09:38.520 --> 0:09:40.840
<v Speaker 1>to win the Super Bowl, them and the Bears, and

0:09:40.880 --> 0:09:43.000
<v Speaker 1>he was not on them just because you could see

0:09:43.000 --> 0:09:44.920
<v Speaker 1>them getting off to a rough start and then things

0:09:44.920 --> 0:09:48.120
<v Speaker 1>going completely south and it unfolded exactly that way. So

0:09:48.480 --> 0:09:51.679
<v Speaker 1>I get everything you're saying. I'm gonna be really interested

0:09:51.760 --> 0:09:54.640
<v Speaker 1>to see how this offseason unfolds for them, because I

0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:57.320
<v Speaker 1>admit that I'm a little optimistic just given how bad

0:09:57.360 --> 0:09:59.920
<v Speaker 1>everything went last year, and Baker Mayfield's much better core

0:10:00.520 --> 0:10:02.360
<v Speaker 1>and he showed and I do think he can bounce back.

0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:04.640
<v Speaker 1>But let's talk about one other team here for the AFC,

0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:07.440
<v Speaker 1>because they also caught my eye just a little bit

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:10.320
<v Speaker 1>given their odds, which is at plus eighteen hundred, and

0:10:10.360 --> 0:10:12.840
<v Speaker 1>that's the Colts. You know. The one thing with the Colts.

0:10:13.000 --> 0:10:16.640
<v Speaker 1>Is you know, they played pretty well early on last year,

0:10:16.679 --> 0:10:19.080
<v Speaker 1>they eventually fell apart. T Y Hilton was dealing with

0:10:19.120 --> 0:10:21.960
<v Speaker 1>an injury. Jacoby Brissett not the answer. He was able

0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:24.280
<v Speaker 1>to fill in in what is pretty much an elite

0:10:24.320 --> 0:10:26.600
<v Speaker 1>offensive system because he had been with them now at

0:10:26.600 --> 0:10:29.600
<v Speaker 1>that point for long enough. He was preparing for it,

0:10:29.640 --> 0:10:31.520
<v Speaker 1>so he was ready to come in, and so they

0:10:31.520 --> 0:10:33.640
<v Speaker 1>were able to get by. But you know, they've got

0:10:33.720 --> 0:10:36.720
<v Speaker 1>nearly ninety million dollars in cap space. There are a

0:10:36.720 --> 0:10:39.920
<v Speaker 1>bunch of quarterbacks kind of going around. Maybe Brady I

0:10:39.960 --> 0:10:42.800
<v Speaker 1>know he's going to probably go back to the Patriots,

0:10:42.800 --> 0:10:45.280
<v Speaker 1>but he's certainly out there. Even Philip Rivers, who I

0:10:45.320 --> 0:10:48.960
<v Speaker 1>realized took a downturn there at the end and certainly

0:10:49.040 --> 0:10:51.640
<v Speaker 1>did not play particularly well through the second half of

0:10:51.640 --> 0:10:54.679
<v Speaker 1>the season. Maybe Jameis Winston. There's there are people out

0:10:54.720 --> 0:10:57.800
<v Speaker 1>there who they might be able to add, who could

0:10:57.960 --> 0:11:01.200
<v Speaker 1>be more competent than Brissett. And they have, again the

0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:04.839
<v Speaker 1>elite system. Overall, they're a very talented team, a great

0:11:04.880 --> 0:11:07.160
<v Speaker 1>offensive line. So do you think that there's any chance

0:11:07.240 --> 0:11:09.680
<v Speaker 1>that they could provide some value at plus eighteen hundred?

0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:10.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah?

0:11:10.280 --> 0:11:12.640
<v Speaker 3>Sure, I don't hate the value there on the Colts.

0:11:13.240 --> 0:11:15.320
<v Speaker 3>The Colts are second on the odds list of land

0:11:15.320 --> 0:11:18.160
<v Speaker 3>Philip Rivers. I think that would be very interesting, especially

0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:20.840
<v Speaker 3>with the receiving corp that the Colts have with t

0:11:21.000 --> 0:11:25.520
<v Speaker 3>Y Hilton Paris Campbell, the Colts rookie receiver this past season.

0:11:25.600 --> 0:11:27.640
<v Speaker 3>He was hurt almost the whole year two. I think

0:11:27.679 --> 0:11:29.360
<v Speaker 3>a lot of people are forgetting about him. He's a

0:11:29.480 --> 0:11:32.280
<v Speaker 3>very talented player. I'd be excited to see how he

0:11:32.320 --> 0:11:35.040
<v Speaker 3>does last or next year once he's healthy. So yeah,

0:11:35.080 --> 0:11:37.880
<v Speaker 3>plus eighteen hundred with kind of I mean, there's no

0:11:38.040 --> 0:11:41.160
<v Speaker 3>real number three, number four team in the AFC that

0:11:41.200 --> 0:11:43.199
<v Speaker 3>could be the Colts that could slide into that spot

0:11:43.240 --> 0:11:44.599
<v Speaker 3>next year if they get a couple of pieces in

0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:46.559
<v Speaker 3>the offseason, So sure, plus eighteen hundred.

0:11:46.760 --> 0:11:48.319
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. I don't hate those odds at all.

0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:50.000
<v Speaker 1>And I think the one thing I'll say about that

0:11:50.080 --> 0:11:51.959
<v Speaker 1>is if you like it like I do, and ETON

0:11:52.120 --> 0:11:55.160
<v Speaker 1>sort of does, this would probably be the time to

0:11:55.160 --> 0:11:58.040
<v Speaker 1>bet it, because if they get an upgraded quarterback, I

0:11:58.080 --> 0:12:01.000
<v Speaker 1>don't see their odds getting longer from where they are now.

0:12:01.040 --> 0:12:03.600
<v Speaker 1>There's really no reason for that unless they don't make

0:12:03.600 --> 0:12:06.720
<v Speaker 1>a move at quarterback and somehow per set sustains you know,

0:12:06.760 --> 0:12:09.000
<v Speaker 1>a tough injury, then they're really gat no shot there.

0:12:09.040 --> 0:12:12.880
<v Speaker 1>But at this point, frankly, given you know where they

0:12:12.880 --> 0:12:15.360
<v Speaker 1>are a strong team, if they get a quarterback, the

0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:17.440
<v Speaker 1>odds are going to get you know, much shorter. So

0:12:17.720 --> 0:12:19.920
<v Speaker 1>if you do like them, I think i'd make a move. Now,

0:12:20.400 --> 0:12:23.400
<v Speaker 1>all right, I think we talked enough here about the AFC,

0:12:23.440 --> 0:12:25.560
<v Speaker 1>So let's go on to the NFC, which you described

0:12:25.600 --> 0:12:27.439
<v Speaker 1>as much more interesting. So that'll be good, so he

0:12:27.480 --> 0:12:30.200
<v Speaker 1>can lead us there. Forty nine ers, not surprisingly off

0:12:30.200 --> 0:12:33.400
<v Speaker 1>their Super Bowl appearance are the Favorites at plus five hundred,

0:12:33.520 --> 0:12:36.959
<v Speaker 1>Saints at plus six hundred, Eagles at plus eight hundred,

0:12:37.360 --> 0:12:41.400
<v Speaker 1>Packers at plus eight fifty, the Seahawks, Vikings and Cowboys

0:12:41.480 --> 0:12:44.480
<v Speaker 1>all at plus nine fifty, the Rams at plus one

0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:47.480
<v Speaker 1>thousand and fifty, Falcons of Bears at plus sixteen hundred,

0:12:47.760 --> 0:12:51.320
<v Speaker 1>the Bucks at plus twenty two hundred, the Panthers, Giants, Lions,

0:12:51.360 --> 0:12:54.000
<v Speaker 1>Cardinals all at plus three thousand. Bringing up the rear

0:12:54.040 --> 0:12:57.079
<v Speaker 1>are the Redskins at plus forty five hundred. So unlike

0:12:57.120 --> 0:12:59.640
<v Speaker 1>the AFC kind of how you alluded to, you've got

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:02.080
<v Speaker 1>a lot lot of teams here, whose odds are not

0:13:02.480 --> 0:13:05.240
<v Speaker 1>that long necessarily to win. So what do you think

0:13:05.280 --> 0:13:07.000
<v Speaker 1>what's sticking out to you in terms of value here?

0:13:09.000 --> 0:13:11.960
<v Speaker 3>I might sound bias here. Actually I'm probably definitely gonna

0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:14.520
<v Speaker 3>sound bias. So maybe you can talk some actual logic

0:13:14.880 --> 0:13:17.199
<v Speaker 3>endo me here, because I do this every single offseason

0:13:17.200 --> 0:13:20.920
<v Speaker 3>with my Atlanta Falcons. But they after the bye week

0:13:20.960 --> 0:13:24.000
<v Speaker 3>this past season. Don't forget, they ended the season very strong.

0:13:24.040 --> 0:13:25.840
<v Speaker 3>I think there are six and two after the bye week,

0:13:25.880 --> 0:13:28.760
<v Speaker 3>including a win over the Super Bowl San.

0:13:28.600 --> 0:13:31.120
<v Speaker 2>Francisco forty nine ers. They beat them there late in

0:13:31.200 --> 0:13:31.680
<v Speaker 2>the season.

0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:34.439
<v Speaker 3>So sixteen to one, I mean, I wasn't a huge

0:13:34.440 --> 0:13:36.720
<v Speaker 3>fan of them bringing dan Quinn back to completely, to

0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:38.760
<v Speaker 3>be completely honest, that does worry me a little bit.

0:13:39.360 --> 0:13:42.560
<v Speaker 3>But I mean Matt Ryan, Julio Jones, Calvin Ridley, I mean,

0:13:42.760 --> 0:13:45.320
<v Speaker 3>they've got a young secondary. They need to add a

0:13:45.360 --> 0:13:48.040
<v Speaker 3>pass rusher for sure, in the draft or in free

0:13:48.040 --> 0:13:50.800
<v Speaker 3>agency or a trade or something. They definitely need a

0:13:50.800 --> 0:13:55.880
<v Speaker 3>pass rusher. But sixteen to one, I mean, like I said,

0:13:55.880 --> 0:13:58.079
<v Speaker 3>they had a great end of the season. So maybe

0:13:58.080 --> 0:14:00.600
<v Speaker 3>this is me being a huge Falcons fan. My bias

0:14:00.679 --> 0:14:03.240
<v Speaker 3>might be showing. So I'm interested to hear your thoughts,

0:14:03.240 --> 0:14:04.920
<v Speaker 3>but that would be the number that sticks out to

0:14:04.920 --> 0:14:06.160
<v Speaker 3>me the most out all these teams.

0:14:06.360 --> 0:14:08.480
<v Speaker 1>Okay, first of all, let me ask you, how are

0:14:08.480 --> 0:14:10.360
<v Speaker 1>you a Falcons fan? Because I can hear in your

0:14:10.440 --> 0:14:12.360
<v Speaker 1>voice you must be from Canada.

0:14:12.080 --> 0:14:14.040
<v Speaker 2>Right, Yeah, so I'm Canadian.

0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:16.520
<v Speaker 3>So so we don't really have any kind of allegiance

0:14:16.520 --> 0:14:18.240
<v Speaker 3>because we don't have any teams. So, if I'm being

0:14:18.280 --> 0:14:22.360
<v Speaker 3>one hundred percent completely honest, when I first started watching football,

0:14:22.400 --> 0:14:24.000
<v Speaker 3>the way I got into it was I bought like

0:14:24.160 --> 0:14:27.080
<v Speaker 3>Madden two thousand and five or something, and it was

0:14:27.120 --> 0:14:29.320
<v Speaker 3>the first year of Superstar Mode, and I created a

0:14:29.320 --> 0:14:30.880
<v Speaker 3>player and I was like, well, I have no allegiance

0:14:30.880 --> 0:14:33.520
<v Speaker 3>to any team. Whatever team my player gets drafted to,

0:14:33.680 --> 0:14:35.120
<v Speaker 3>that's gonna be my favorite team for the rest of

0:14:35.160 --> 0:14:37.880
<v Speaker 3>my life. And the player got drafted by the Atlanta Falcons.

0:14:38.160 --> 0:14:40.200
<v Speaker 3>So I have been in a Falcons fan ever since.

0:14:40.240 --> 0:14:41.920
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I needed some reason to pick a team,

0:14:42.000 --> 0:14:43.640
<v Speaker 3>so I figured that was as good of a reason

0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:44.040
<v Speaker 3>as ever.

0:14:44.280 --> 0:14:46.560
<v Speaker 1>That's an outstanding story, and I love it. And you've

0:14:46.600 --> 0:14:49.440
<v Speaker 1>stuck with them no matter what. Obviously they've they you know,

0:14:49.520 --> 0:14:51.520
<v Speaker 1>they haven't always been winners, so it's been good to

0:14:51.520 --> 0:14:54.720
<v Speaker 1>stick with them. Look, I you maybe you'll be disappointed

0:14:54.720 --> 0:14:56.440
<v Speaker 1>by this, maybe you'll be happy, but I'm not going

0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:57.840
<v Speaker 1>to talk you out of it. I had a couple

0:14:57.920 --> 0:14:59.800
<v Speaker 1>of teams on my list that I kind of looked

0:14:59.840 --> 0:15:01.680
<v Speaker 1>at as being like, you know, it's not that I

0:15:01.760 --> 0:15:03.720
<v Speaker 1>necessarily am going to go in thinking like, yeah, I

0:15:03.760 --> 0:15:06.200
<v Speaker 1>really think this team is going to win the NFC

0:15:06.240 --> 0:15:08.040
<v Speaker 1>next year, but it's certainly something where I looked at

0:15:08.040 --> 0:15:10.520
<v Speaker 1>the odds and I thought that had value. Absolutely. The

0:15:10.560 --> 0:15:12.280
<v Speaker 1>Falcons were one of the teams on the list. They

0:15:12.320 --> 0:15:14.720
<v Speaker 1>played so well down the stretch. Again, I was one of,

0:15:14.960 --> 0:15:17.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, the many people calling for dan Quinn to

0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:18.920
<v Speaker 1>be fired in the middle of the season because the

0:15:18.960 --> 0:15:21.160
<v Speaker 1>team looked dead in the water. They stuck with him.

0:15:21.360 --> 0:15:24.240
<v Speaker 1>They didn't fire him. The team played very, very well

0:15:24.240 --> 0:15:27.320
<v Speaker 1>down the stretch. As you mentioned the defense, it's always injured, right,

0:15:27.360 --> 0:15:29.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, they need help on defense generally, But if

0:15:29.200 --> 0:15:32.480
<v Speaker 1>they can just stay healthy one year and come together

0:15:32.600 --> 0:15:36.120
<v Speaker 1>with the receivers with Hooper emerging, yeah, I completely like it.

0:15:36.160 --> 0:15:38.800
<v Speaker 1>I definitely that was one of my picks. So plus

0:15:38.840 --> 0:15:41.040
<v Speaker 1>sixteen hundred, I think that's one that we both, like

0:15:41.400 --> 0:15:43.480
<v Speaker 1>anybody else here that you're finding value because I have

0:15:43.520 --> 0:15:45.040
<v Speaker 1>a couple of names that I'll throw out there which

0:15:45.040 --> 0:15:47.960
<v Speaker 1>are more long shots. But you know, I'm wondering whether

0:15:48.000 --> 0:15:49.440
<v Speaker 1>or not you have any other teams that you like

0:15:49.520 --> 0:15:52.040
<v Speaker 1>value other than the Falcons, which I agree is one

0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:52.680
<v Speaker 1>of my favorites.

0:15:53.160 --> 0:15:55.120
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, the other team that sticking out to me is

0:15:55.320 --> 0:15:58.440
<v Speaker 3>probably the Rams plus a little over plus one thousand there.

0:15:58.480 --> 0:16:00.400
<v Speaker 3>I mean the Rams there were they were in a

0:16:00.400 --> 0:16:02.200
<v Speaker 3>Super Bowl two years ago. I mean, I don't know

0:16:02.200 --> 0:16:04.200
<v Speaker 3>if Jared Goff is the answer. He did not have

0:16:04.240 --> 0:16:06.080
<v Speaker 3>a great year, but the Rams lost a lot of

0:16:06.120 --> 0:16:08.520
<v Speaker 3>close games this season. They were pretty competitive in just

0:16:08.560 --> 0:16:09.960
<v Speaker 3>about every single game that they played.

0:16:10.000 --> 0:16:11.640
<v Speaker 2>And I mean that is a.

0:16:11.680 --> 0:16:14.560
<v Speaker 3>Very tough division obviously that they're in with the Seahawks

0:16:14.680 --> 0:16:17.280
<v Speaker 3>and the forty nine ers and the Young Cardinals as well,

0:16:17.320 --> 0:16:20.000
<v Speaker 3>so that, I mean, that's arguably the best division in football.

0:16:20.000 --> 0:16:21.640
<v Speaker 2>So it's going to be hard to win that division.

0:16:22.600 --> 0:16:24.760
<v Speaker 3>But as far as the odds go, I mean, I

0:16:24.760 --> 0:16:26.440
<v Speaker 3>think the Rams hold a little bit of value too.

0:16:26.760 --> 0:16:28.360
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I could see that. My big thing with them

0:16:28.400 --> 0:16:31.600
<v Speaker 1>is they just they're so hamstrung by the cap, right,

0:16:31.680 --> 0:16:33.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you know, golf steal it's going to be

0:16:33.720 --> 0:16:35.800
<v Speaker 1>so hard for them to really kind of, you know,

0:16:35.840 --> 0:16:38.320
<v Speaker 1>boost up the offensive line, which they definitely need to do,

0:16:38.400 --> 0:16:42.080
<v Speaker 1>because that's really the difference in how GoF plays when

0:16:42.080 --> 0:16:44.920
<v Speaker 1>he is protected versus not is really striking. I kind

0:16:44.920 --> 0:16:47.040
<v Speaker 1>of like the Seahawks a little more, which is around

0:16:47.080 --> 0:16:49.000
<v Speaker 1>the same adds at plus nine to fifty there, just

0:16:49.040 --> 0:16:51.840
<v Speaker 1>because I do think it's talk right now. But that's

0:16:51.840 --> 0:16:54.560
<v Speaker 1>all we have is talk is Russell Wilson basically being like,

0:16:54.680 --> 0:16:57.320
<v Speaker 1>you have to open up this offense. You need to

0:16:57.760 --> 0:17:00.520
<v Speaker 1>for sure, because it was the same thing every single game.

0:17:00.560 --> 0:17:03.440
<v Speaker 1>They run, run, run, Brian Schottenheimer wants to run NonStop,

0:17:03.600 --> 0:17:06.240
<v Speaker 1>and then if they fell behind or if Wilson was

0:17:06.280 --> 0:17:08.960
<v Speaker 1>able to just basically have the reins taken off, then

0:17:08.960 --> 0:17:11.000
<v Speaker 1>he did some great things. So I think if they're

0:17:11.040 --> 0:17:13.320
<v Speaker 1>able to, you know, add a few pieces, if they

0:17:13.359 --> 0:17:15.200
<v Speaker 1>can hold on to Clowney, if they can add a

0:17:15.240 --> 0:17:18.280
<v Speaker 1>few pieces, if they changed their offensive philosophy their team,

0:17:18.320 --> 0:17:21.919
<v Speaker 1>that could certainly, in my mind, have some value at

0:17:21.960 --> 0:17:24.320
<v Speaker 1>plus nine to fifty. But I actually want to talk

0:17:24.359 --> 0:17:27.840
<v Speaker 1>about two real long shots, one of which you're just

0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:30.200
<v Speaker 1>gonna dismiss out right. I'm wondering about the other one.

0:17:30.320 --> 0:17:32.879
<v Speaker 1>The other one is the Bucks. You've obviously got this

0:17:32.960 --> 0:17:36.440
<v Speaker 1>quarterback situation that's unclear. It might be James Winston, it

0:17:36.520 --> 0:17:38.800
<v Speaker 1>might be Philip Rivers. He packed up his whole team

0:17:38.840 --> 0:17:41.800
<v Speaker 1>and moved him down to Florida. You know, the offensive

0:17:41.840 --> 0:17:45.640
<v Speaker 1>system worked, that wasn't the issue. The issue on offense

0:17:45.720 --> 0:17:48.359
<v Speaker 1>was the fact that Jamis Winston turned the ball over

0:17:48.520 --> 0:17:51.399
<v Speaker 1>eight thousand times and it was just difficult to overcome that.

0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:55.240
<v Speaker 1>But the defense is really the thing here because quietly

0:17:55.320 --> 0:17:57.040
<v Speaker 1>over the second half of the season, sort of like

0:17:57.080 --> 0:18:00.200
<v Speaker 1>the Falcons, the defense, which was abysmal at the start

0:18:00.320 --> 0:18:02.840
<v Speaker 1>the past defense really turn things around over the second

0:18:02.880 --> 0:18:04.880
<v Speaker 1>half of the season. If they can build on that,

0:18:05.119 --> 0:18:07.240
<v Speaker 1>and if they can kind of whoever is going to

0:18:07.240 --> 0:18:09.240
<v Speaker 1>be a quarterback find a way to limit the turnovers.

0:18:09.240 --> 0:18:11.879
<v Speaker 1>They still have the elite receivers. Ronald Jones, you know,

0:18:12.119 --> 0:18:14.800
<v Speaker 1>kind of emerging. He looked better down the stretch. They

0:18:14.840 --> 0:18:17.880
<v Speaker 1>are a team that I think could threaten. That's particularly

0:18:18.200 --> 0:18:21.520
<v Speaker 1>the part of me. That's particularly the case if Drew

0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:24.800
<v Speaker 1>Brees retires, which I think is really in play here.

0:18:24.800 --> 0:18:28.040
<v Speaker 1>He may not, but if he does, you know, they're

0:18:28.080 --> 0:18:31.480
<v Speaker 1>in a tough division. Anyway, because you know, we've talked

0:18:31.520 --> 0:18:34.199
<v Speaker 1>about the Falcons, of course, but the Buck struck me

0:18:34.240 --> 0:18:36.280
<v Speaker 1>plus twenty two hundred, those are pretty long odds. With

0:18:36.320 --> 0:18:38.440
<v Speaker 1>another year in AARAN system. They strike me as a

0:18:38.480 --> 0:18:39.680
<v Speaker 1>team that could have some value there.

0:18:40.520 --> 0:18:43.800
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I don't hate that pick at all. Yeah.

0:18:43.840 --> 0:18:45.320
<v Speaker 3>I mean, like like you said, it comes down to

0:18:45.359 --> 0:18:47.359
<v Speaker 3>James Winston. I mean, if they keep Jameis Winston, if

0:18:47.400 --> 0:18:49.080
<v Speaker 3>he's going to be their guy next year, I mean,

0:18:49.119 --> 0:18:50.760
<v Speaker 3>if if you look at his numbers, you just take

0:18:50.800 --> 0:18:54.360
<v Speaker 3>away the interceptions he was at an MVP caliber.

0:18:54.000 --> 0:18:56.520
<v Speaker 1>Seas and the fumbles and the fumbles of course forget

0:18:56.560 --> 0:18:56.919
<v Speaker 1>about that.

0:18:57.080 --> 0:18:59.320
<v Speaker 3>Well, yes, but you take it so you take away

0:18:59.359 --> 0:19:01.280
<v Speaker 3>his turnovers, like the rest of his numbers are almost

0:19:01.359 --> 0:19:04.560
<v Speaker 3>MVP calibers. So I don't know, because this has kind

0:19:04.560 --> 0:19:06.639
<v Speaker 3>of been the story of James Winston year after year

0:19:06.720 --> 0:19:08.280
<v Speaker 3>since has been in the league as the turnover So

0:19:08.320 --> 0:19:10.480
<v Speaker 3>I don't know if he can cut those out right,

0:19:10.760 --> 0:19:12.240
<v Speaker 3>But if he does, I mean watch out for the

0:19:12.240 --> 0:19:13.560
<v Speaker 3>Bucks shore twenty two to one.

0:19:13.720 --> 0:19:15.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah again, And for me, it's really much more

0:19:16.000 --> 0:19:18.240
<v Speaker 1>about the defense, you know, because again in the beginning

0:19:18.240 --> 0:19:20.320
<v Speaker 1>of the season, they were terrible, and they really really

0:19:20.320 --> 0:19:22.680
<v Speaker 1>pulled it together as a season went on. The other one,

0:19:22.680 --> 0:19:24.760
<v Speaker 1>I kind of like, again, this one. I mean, it's

0:19:24.840 --> 0:19:27.840
<v Speaker 1>it's it's one of the longest odds, But could be

0:19:27.880 --> 0:19:30.880
<v Speaker 1>the Cardinals. You know, You've got obviously Larry Fitzgerald back,

0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:33.240
<v Speaker 1>if all the receivers get a little bit healthy, You've

0:19:33.240 --> 0:19:36.000
<v Speaker 1>got Kyler Murray maybe taking a second you know, maybe

0:19:36.040 --> 0:19:38.960
<v Speaker 1>a giant leap in his second year. They've got a

0:19:39.040 --> 0:19:40.960
<v Speaker 1>high pick in the draft. So if they can add

0:19:41.000 --> 0:19:43.080
<v Speaker 1>to that defense, that's a team that I could see. Like,

0:19:43.119 --> 0:19:44.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, you get everyone's wanting to get the teams.

0:19:44.960 --> 0:19:46.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean the forty nine er, you get a team

0:19:46.280 --> 0:19:48.359
<v Speaker 1>that kind of you're just like, oh, well, they're not

0:19:48.520 --> 0:19:50.800
<v Speaker 1>very good, and then suddenly they come back the next

0:19:50.880 --> 0:19:52.960
<v Speaker 1>year and you're like, whoa, where did this come from?

0:19:53.160 --> 0:19:55.320
<v Speaker 1>I could see if the Cardinals have a bang up offseason,

0:19:55.640 --> 0:19:57.880
<v Speaker 1>they could do that. If Murray again takes that giant

0:19:57.960 --> 0:19:59.880
<v Speaker 1>leap in a second year. But that's a plus three.

0:20:00.359 --> 0:20:02.359
<v Speaker 1>That's the only reason why I take that. So I

0:20:02.400 --> 0:20:04.760
<v Speaker 1>assume that's one that even that those odds are probably

0:20:04.800 --> 0:20:06.960
<v Speaker 1>like not, man, where we're far away from that?

0:20:07.480 --> 0:20:09.240
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I know, I'm staying away from that, I mean,

0:20:09.280 --> 0:20:12.000
<v Speaker 3>this is probably not a very popular opinion, But I'm

0:20:12.000 --> 0:20:14.480
<v Speaker 3>not a huge Kyler Murray believer. I'm not a huge

0:20:14.480 --> 0:20:16.520
<v Speaker 3>fan of his. I wasn't when he when he was

0:20:16.520 --> 0:20:19.359
<v Speaker 3>in college coming into the NFL. The big thing about

0:20:19.440 --> 0:20:21.840
<v Speaker 3>quarterbacks who can run the ball is whether or not

0:20:21.880 --> 0:20:24.600
<v Speaker 3>they use their feet to buy more time to find

0:20:24.640 --> 0:20:27.200
<v Speaker 3>guys downfield, or if they use their feet to more

0:20:27.480 --> 0:20:29.600
<v Speaker 3>look for a place to run with the ball. And

0:20:29.640 --> 0:20:31.679
<v Speaker 3>I find when Kyler Murray he looks back and he

0:20:31.720 --> 0:20:33.880
<v Speaker 3>sees his first read, and if his first read isn't open,

0:20:33.920 --> 0:20:36.080
<v Speaker 3>it it's like he shifts his glance down to right

0:20:36.119 --> 0:20:37.440
<v Speaker 3>in front of him to see if he can find

0:20:37.440 --> 0:20:40.280
<v Speaker 3>a place to run with the ball instead of guys

0:20:40.359 --> 0:20:42.960
<v Speaker 3>Like we saw Lamar Jackson. Yes he did run with

0:20:43.000 --> 0:20:44.760
<v Speaker 3>the ball quite a bit, but he also used his

0:20:44.760 --> 0:20:47.120
<v Speaker 3>feet to buy more time in the backfield. And that's

0:20:47.119 --> 0:20:50.520
<v Speaker 3>what Patrick Mahomes is really good at with his athletic ability.

0:20:50.640 --> 0:20:53.720
<v Speaker 3>So if Kyler Murray can kind of use his athleticism

0:20:53.760 --> 0:20:55.800
<v Speaker 3>to more buy more time instead of finding a place

0:20:55.840 --> 0:20:58.520
<v Speaker 3>to run, then I'd start to like Kyler Murray a

0:20:58.520 --> 0:20:58.920
<v Speaker 3>little bit.

0:20:58.960 --> 0:20:59.920
<v Speaker 2>But I wasn't.

0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:01.760
<v Speaker 3>I wasn't a huge fan of him this year, but

0:21:01.840 --> 0:21:04.400
<v Speaker 3>I mean, he was a rookie, so he obviously still

0:21:04.440 --> 0:21:05.919
<v Speaker 3>has a lot to a lot of time to develop,

0:21:05.960 --> 0:21:07.320
<v Speaker 3>a lot of time to get used to the system

0:21:07.320 --> 0:21:11.200
<v Speaker 3>that Cliff Kingsbury offense. So yeah, I'm not ready to

0:21:11.240 --> 0:21:13.000
<v Speaker 3>buy stock and the Cardinals to quite yet though.

0:21:13.080 --> 0:21:15.119
<v Speaker 1>No, I think it's fair. Of course, Again, their odds

0:21:15.119 --> 0:21:18.640
<v Speaker 1>are pretty long for me. Again, it's mostly about on

0:21:18.760 --> 0:21:22.840
<v Speaker 1>predicated on Murray taking a giant leap into his next year.

0:21:23.359 --> 0:21:24.760
<v Speaker 1>All right, let's turn to the Super Bowl.

0:21:24.760 --> 0:21:24.920
<v Speaker 2>Here.

0:21:24.920 --> 0:21:26.600
<v Speaker 1>We've got thirty two teams, so I'm not going to

0:21:26.680 --> 0:21:29.399
<v Speaker 1>list all their odds because that will take forever. You

0:21:29.440 --> 0:21:33.040
<v Speaker 1>can assume essentially that the odds are roughly double what

0:21:33.080 --> 0:21:36.320
<v Speaker 1>they were for winning either the AFC or the NFC. So,

0:21:36.400 --> 0:21:38.680
<v Speaker 1>for example, the Chiefs were the favorite for the AFC

0:21:39.000 --> 0:21:41.800
<v Speaker 1>at plus three hundred there plus six hundred for the

0:21:41.840 --> 0:21:43.840
<v Speaker 1>Super Bowl. The Niners were plus five hundred for the

0:21:43.920 --> 0:21:46.480
<v Speaker 1>NFC there plus one thousand for the Super Bowl. The

0:21:46.560 --> 0:21:49.360
<v Speaker 1>Redskins are plus ten thousand for the longest odds. I mean,

0:21:49.400 --> 0:21:51.919
<v Speaker 1>you want specifics, we can talk about them, but you know,

0:21:52.440 --> 0:21:55.600
<v Speaker 1>in essentially doubling the numbers, is there any value here

0:21:55.680 --> 0:21:58.200
<v Speaker 1>or is it really just essentially what we talked about

0:21:58.240 --> 0:21:59.520
<v Speaker 1>with the conference winners.

0:22:00.080 --> 0:22:02.119
<v Speaker 3>I mean, obviously a lot of it is the stuff

0:22:02.119 --> 0:22:03.720
<v Speaker 3>that we talked about in the Conference winners, But I

0:22:03.760 --> 0:22:06.639
<v Speaker 3>mean I think the Chiefs to hold value plus six hundred.

0:22:06.680 --> 0:22:08.959
<v Speaker 3>I expect them to have a great year next season,

0:22:09.960 --> 0:22:12.359
<v Speaker 3>and if they do, I mean, their odds are only

0:22:12.400 --> 0:22:14.480
<v Speaker 3>going to get shorter once the season goes on. So

0:22:14.520 --> 0:22:15.920
<v Speaker 3>if you're going to bet on the Chiefs at all,

0:22:15.960 --> 0:22:17.359
<v Speaker 3>I think now would be the time to do to

0:22:17.359 --> 0:22:19.199
<v Speaker 3>win the Super Bowl. And I mean there's a good

0:22:19.320 --> 0:22:21.320
<v Speaker 3>argument to be made that Patrick Mahomes is going to

0:22:21.320 --> 0:22:22.880
<v Speaker 3>be one of the best quarterbacks in the league.

0:22:22.960 --> 0:22:25.000
<v Speaker 2>He's the next generation, and.

0:22:25.160 --> 0:22:27.639
<v Speaker 3>Maybe the Chiefs are starting to slowly get into a

0:22:27.720 --> 0:22:29.720
<v Speaker 3>dynasty here. So if you want to bet on the

0:22:29.760 --> 0:22:31.640
<v Speaker 3>Chiefs at all plus six hundred, I mean, I don't

0:22:31.640 --> 0:22:33.719
<v Speaker 3>think that's a bad bet. The other team that we

0:22:33.760 --> 0:22:35.760
<v Speaker 3>didn't talk about when talking about the NFC that I

0:22:35.800 --> 0:22:37.280
<v Speaker 3>don't hate their Super Bowl odds.

0:22:37.280 --> 0:22:39.560
<v Speaker 2>Here are the Eagles at seventeen to one to win

0:22:39.600 --> 0:22:40.160
<v Speaker 2>the Super Bowl.

0:22:40.720 --> 0:22:43.840
<v Speaker 3>They had I mean just injuries on injuries on injuries

0:22:43.880 --> 0:22:46.040
<v Speaker 3>on injuries last year. This is already a team that

0:22:46.080 --> 0:22:48.520
<v Speaker 3>won the Super Bowl a few years back. Of course,

0:22:48.560 --> 0:22:51.120
<v Speaker 3>that was Nick Foles as quarterback. But I think Carson

0:22:51.160 --> 0:22:53.520
<v Speaker 3>Wentz got a lot of flat this year that I

0:22:53.520 --> 0:22:56.720
<v Speaker 3>don't think he deserved. I think the Eagles can get

0:22:56.720 --> 0:22:59.040
<v Speaker 3>back there again this coming year if they can stay healthy.

0:22:59.440 --> 0:23:01.720
<v Speaker 3>I like their coach. So the Eagles at seventeen to one,

0:23:01.760 --> 0:23:03.280
<v Speaker 3>I think they're worth a look as well if you're

0:23:03.280 --> 0:23:04.320
<v Speaker 3>looking at the NFC.

0:23:04.040 --> 0:23:06.480
<v Speaker 1>Teams, actually think that's a great call. Yeah, And look,

0:23:06.520 --> 0:23:09.480
<v Speaker 1>Wentz played incredibly well this year, I thought, I mean,

0:23:09.520 --> 0:23:13.160
<v Speaker 1>he had nobody to throw the ball to at any time,

0:23:13.280 --> 0:23:15.240
<v Speaker 1>so I think the way he really held it together

0:23:15.560 --> 0:23:17.679
<v Speaker 1>is pretty great. The one thing I'll point out here is,

0:23:17.800 --> 0:23:20.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, we talk about the consensus odds here, right,

0:23:20.320 --> 0:23:23.159
<v Speaker 1>and that takes into account a large number of books.

0:23:23.320 --> 0:23:25.520
<v Speaker 1>But if you look at the individual books, you're gonna

0:23:25.520 --> 0:23:28.520
<v Speaker 1>find some discrepancies. Like the consensus odds on the Eagles

0:23:28.640 --> 0:23:31.240
<v Speaker 1>are plus seventeen hundred, but at bet MGM they have

0:23:31.320 --> 0:23:34.159
<v Speaker 1>them at plus fourteen hundred. At points Bet they have

0:23:34.240 --> 0:23:36.879
<v Speaker 1>them at plus eighteen hundred. And that's actually one of

0:23:36.880 --> 0:23:39.679
<v Speaker 1>the things that I would point out because the Packers

0:23:39.760 --> 0:23:43.400
<v Speaker 1>at plus eighteen hundred are fine. I don't love them.

0:23:43.400 --> 0:23:45.960
<v Speaker 1>I assume that they're going to add another wide receiver

0:23:46.560 --> 0:23:49.479
<v Speaker 1>for Aaron Rodgers, because you have to obviously, and if

0:23:49.520 --> 0:23:52.200
<v Speaker 1>they do, and if they can make another run, then

0:23:52.440 --> 0:23:54.920
<v Speaker 1>every book that I'm looking at essentially has it at

0:23:54.920 --> 0:23:58.399
<v Speaker 1>eighteen hundred. But on FanDuel it's plus twenty two hundred

0:23:58.600 --> 0:24:01.320
<v Speaker 1>that I like a lot, because that to me, once

0:24:01.359 --> 0:24:03.000
<v Speaker 1>you get to that level, I find you know, the

0:24:03.000 --> 0:24:05.399
<v Speaker 1>difference between eighteen hundred and twenty two hundred is not

0:24:05.480 --> 0:24:08.479
<v Speaker 1>insignificant whatsoever. So what I would do if I were

0:24:08.520 --> 0:24:10.240
<v Speaker 1>you again, you can do it on bettingpros dot com.

0:24:10.280 --> 0:24:12.840
<v Speaker 1>We have the consensus lines and then you see every

0:24:12.880 --> 0:24:16.480
<v Speaker 1>odd basically available at the various books. Pick your best line.

0:24:16.520 --> 0:24:18.160
<v Speaker 1>Make sure you can go out there because you might

0:24:18.520 --> 0:24:21.280
<v Speaker 1>be able to take advantage of every once in a while,

0:24:21.440 --> 0:24:23.880
<v Speaker 1>certain books have lines that you're like, oh, you know what,

0:24:24.000 --> 0:24:26.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm lukewarm at it on the consensus line, but given

0:24:26.800 --> 0:24:29.040
<v Speaker 1>that line for that particular book, I like it. But

0:24:29.080 --> 0:24:31.040
<v Speaker 1>in terms of the Eagles, pick yeah, I do like it.

0:24:31.080 --> 0:24:32.840
<v Speaker 1>The other one that I would like, the Packers, if

0:24:32.880 --> 0:24:34.880
<v Speaker 1>you can get him at plus twenty two hundred over

0:24:34.920 --> 0:24:37.040
<v Speaker 1>at Fandel, I would do that at plus eighteen hundred,

0:24:37.160 --> 0:24:40.360
<v Speaker 1>I don't hate them either. For again, all of these

0:24:40.400 --> 0:24:44.200
<v Speaker 1>are predicated on the team's taking a leap right. The Eagles,

0:24:44.200 --> 0:24:46.520
<v Speaker 1>for example, they've got a I mean, I guess they

0:24:46.560 --> 0:24:49.520
<v Speaker 1>could get by with just Deshaun Jackson, and you know him,

0:24:49.760 --> 0:24:51.800
<v Speaker 1>if he's healthy, he opens up that offense a lot

0:24:51.840 --> 0:24:55.560
<v Speaker 1>and just basically having a generally healthy year. But the Packers,

0:24:55.600 --> 0:24:57.919
<v Speaker 1>if they add a wide receiver at this point, I

0:24:57.920 --> 0:25:00.199
<v Speaker 1>think they could be legitimate Super Bowl contenders. Obviously, they

0:25:00.240 --> 0:25:02.680
<v Speaker 1>made it to the championship game this year, so plus

0:25:02.760 --> 0:25:05.200
<v Speaker 1>eighteen hundred they're okay for me. Plus twenty two hundred,

0:25:05.440 --> 0:25:06.399
<v Speaker 1>I really like them.

0:25:07.080 --> 0:25:08.679
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and I love the fact that you brought up

0:25:08.720 --> 0:25:09.720
<v Speaker 2>look around for different books.

0:25:09.760 --> 0:25:11.800
<v Speaker 3>I know a lot of people don't necessarily like using

0:25:11.800 --> 0:25:13.840
<v Speaker 3>different books during the season because a lot of the

0:25:13.880 --> 0:25:16.280
<v Speaker 3>time you can only get like half a point, maybe

0:25:16.359 --> 0:25:19.600
<v Speaker 3>a full point difference on games. And as you're talking

0:25:19.600 --> 0:25:21.280
<v Speaker 3>about that, I was looking. I went down to look

0:25:21.280 --> 0:25:24.159
<v Speaker 3>at my Falcons odds. Most books have plus thirty three

0:25:24.240 --> 0:25:27.159
<v Speaker 3>hundred plus thirty five hundred. But then FanDuel, again, I

0:25:27.200 --> 0:25:29.120
<v Speaker 3>don't know if the packers and the Falcons are giving

0:25:29.160 --> 0:25:31.640
<v Speaker 3>them a great a lot of value here Falcons plus

0:25:31.640 --> 0:25:35.640
<v Speaker 3>thirty three hundred, most books FanDuel plus forty three hundred. Yeah,

0:25:35.680 --> 0:25:37.600
<v Speaker 3>so that's a massive difference if we want to bet

0:25:37.600 --> 0:25:40.040
<v Speaker 3>on the Falcons there to win the Super Bowl next year.

0:25:40.080 --> 0:25:42.239
<v Speaker 3>So yeah, I love that point that you brought up.

0:25:42.240 --> 0:25:43.840
<v Speaker 3>If you're going to place the future that you want

0:25:43.840 --> 0:25:46.000
<v Speaker 3>to definitely look for the best value possible.

0:25:46.119 --> 0:25:48.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and again, I mean you look at it. FanDuel

0:25:48.720 --> 0:25:50.639
<v Speaker 1>is really sort of the one that that's kind of

0:25:50.880 --> 0:25:52.560
<v Speaker 1>the outlier with the consensus. I mean you look at

0:25:52.600 --> 0:25:55.160
<v Speaker 1>the Bucks. The consensus odds are plus five thousand. That's

0:25:55.160 --> 0:25:57.720
<v Speaker 1>what you'll see at DraftKings Sports book. That's what you'll

0:25:57.720 --> 0:26:00.000
<v Speaker 1>see it a lot. On Fandel It's only plus thirty

0:26:00.160 --> 0:26:02.040
<v Speaker 1>five hundred to win the Super Bowl. So this is

0:26:02.160 --> 0:26:04.800
<v Speaker 1>really a time where the books are going to be

0:26:04.840 --> 0:26:07.040
<v Speaker 1>as different as possible. Again, you're right you talk about that.

0:26:07.240 --> 0:26:09.240
<v Speaker 1>I wish it weren't necessarily the case, but for the

0:26:09.280 --> 0:26:12.000
<v Speaker 1>most part, the consensus line all of the books are

0:26:12.040 --> 0:26:14.320
<v Speaker 1>really really close and the numbers. Now is a time

0:26:14.320 --> 0:26:16.200
<v Speaker 1>where if you look around and again just go to

0:26:16.240 --> 0:26:18.280
<v Speaker 1>bettingpros Dot com. We have all of them listed out

0:26:18.359 --> 0:26:20.359
<v Speaker 1>right next to each other, so you can see you'll

0:26:20.359 --> 0:26:22.560
<v Speaker 1>find a lot of differences in the various books. So

0:26:22.560 --> 0:26:25.760
<v Speaker 1>that is the time to take advantage of it. All right, Ian,

0:26:26.000 --> 0:26:27.760
<v Speaker 1>that is it for us. It has been great to

0:26:27.840 --> 0:26:30.480
<v Speaker 1>talk a little bit of football for twenty twenty. Remind

0:26:30.480 --> 0:26:32.639
<v Speaker 1>everybody where they can find more of you and your work.

0:26:33.080 --> 0:26:35.800
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, absolutely, Dan, Yeah, So the best place to find

0:26:35.800 --> 0:26:37.840
<v Speaker 3>me is on Twitter. If anyone out there is on

0:26:37.880 --> 0:26:41.639
<v Speaker 3>Twitter there my handle is Ian mac Osi a I

0:26:41.800 --> 0:26:46.080
<v Speaker 3>n m acos. Now that the NFL season is over,

0:26:46.160 --> 0:26:49.080
<v Speaker 3>I do a lot of college basketball and golf betting

0:26:49.160 --> 0:26:51.439
<v Speaker 3>for the spring and then into the summer, So if

0:26:51.440 --> 0:26:53.160
<v Speaker 3>you're into that, be sure to give me a follow

0:26:53.240 --> 0:26:55.480
<v Speaker 3>on Twitter, and of course check us out at odd

0:26:55.480 --> 0:26:56.359
<v Speaker 3>shark dot com.

0:26:56.520 --> 0:26:59.040
<v Speaker 1>Awesome, Well, I look forward to talking again as always,

0:26:59.200 --> 0:27:02.920
<v Speaker 1>and probably it'll be about a different sport. But until then,

0:27:03.000 --> 0:27:05.520
<v Speaker 1>take it easy and let's go Falcons.

0:27:06.080 --> 0:27:09.479
<v Speaker 2>That sounds good, Dan, take care all right.

0:27:09.480 --> 0:27:11.439
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna switch gears here a bit and turn to

0:27:11.480 --> 0:27:14.960
<v Speaker 1>the Academy Awards, which airs this Sunday night, February ninth.

0:27:15.160 --> 0:27:17.600
<v Speaker 1>If you have ever listened to any of my other podcasts.

0:27:17.640 --> 0:27:19.720
<v Speaker 1>Then you know that I'm a bit of a cinophile,

0:27:19.760 --> 0:27:22.399
<v Speaker 1>so I'm pretty excited about the segment, both because of

0:27:22.440 --> 0:27:25.119
<v Speaker 1>the topic and because of our guest, Carrie Kurpin, this

0:27:25.280 --> 0:27:28.359
<v Speaker 1>CEO of Likable Media. You can find her on Twitter

0:27:28.520 --> 0:27:31.760
<v Speaker 1>at Carrie Kurpein Now. I've known Carrie for years, and

0:27:31.840 --> 0:27:33.520
<v Speaker 1>I've been eager to have her on ever since. We

0:27:33.560 --> 0:27:36.200
<v Speaker 1>made a small wager about fifteen years ago on whether

0:27:36.280 --> 0:27:38.640
<v Speaker 1>Crash or Broke Back Mountain would win Best Picture, and

0:27:38.680 --> 0:27:41.119
<v Speaker 1>she won. So today I'm going to exact my revenge

0:27:41.160 --> 0:27:42.920
<v Speaker 1>for that and the fact that she kicked me over

0:27:42.920 --> 0:27:46.440
<v Speaker 1>a table during a fight about Nintendo when I was eleven. Yes,

0:27:46.520 --> 0:27:49.280
<v Speaker 1>she is the CEO of a social media company. Yes

0:27:49.320 --> 0:27:51.720
<v Speaker 1>she is an oscar betting expert, and yes she also

0:27:51.760 --> 0:27:54.880
<v Speaker 1>happens to be my big sister. Carrie. Welcome to the show.

0:27:54.920 --> 0:27:58.120
<v Speaker 4>How are you hey, Dan? Thrilled to be here. It's

0:27:58.160 --> 0:27:59.960
<v Speaker 4>been a long time since I pushed you over that table.

0:28:00.280 --> 0:28:03.200
<v Speaker 1>I know our parents still referenced it pretty much every

0:28:03.280 --> 0:28:05.359
<v Speaker 1>day of our lives, and it's really kind of shaped

0:28:05.359 --> 0:28:08.000
<v Speaker 1>the way I am as a human. So I mean

0:28:08.000 --> 0:28:10.119
<v Speaker 1>it's true. Yeah, you should go. Yeah, he had a

0:28:10.119 --> 0:28:12.480
<v Speaker 1>big impact on me. How about that, Carrie? This is

0:28:12.520 --> 0:28:16.120
<v Speaker 1>actually our first non NFL segment ever on this podcast.

0:28:16.200 --> 0:28:18.760
<v Speaker 1>It is a ton of pressure. Are you ready? I'm

0:28:18.800 --> 0:28:19.640
<v Speaker 1>ready for the pressure.

0:28:19.680 --> 0:28:19.880
<v Speaker 2>Man.

0:28:19.960 --> 0:28:22.320
<v Speaker 4>I that was a big bet with Crash and I

0:28:22.359 --> 0:28:24.480
<v Speaker 4>was quite happy to win. And I'm I'm gonna hold

0:28:24.480 --> 0:28:26.359
<v Speaker 4>myself to those same high standards now.

0:28:26.800 --> 0:28:28.720
<v Speaker 1>Well, you better because I've been waiting for this moment

0:28:28.760 --> 0:28:30.560
<v Speaker 1>for a long time. Well, let us jump in here.

0:28:30.640 --> 0:28:32.240
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna break down some of the odds on the

0:28:32.280 --> 0:28:35.520
<v Speaker 1>quote unquote major awards. All right, that includes Best Picture,

0:28:35.640 --> 0:28:39.080
<v Speaker 1>all the acting awards, Director, and both screenplay, original and

0:28:39.120 --> 0:28:40.320
<v Speaker 1>adapt It does that work for you?

0:28:40.880 --> 0:28:41.600
<v Speaker 4>Totally works.

0:28:41.960 --> 0:28:43.800
<v Speaker 1>As with anything you can bet on, the odds vary

0:28:43.880 --> 0:28:45.600
<v Speaker 1>depending on what book you go to. But we're going

0:28:45.680 --> 0:28:49.120
<v Speaker 1>to be using DraftKings for our odds because DraftKings not

0:28:49.200 --> 0:28:52.320
<v Speaker 1>only offers odds on every major sport, but also now

0:28:52.400 --> 0:28:54.640
<v Speaker 1>on the Academy Awards, and they are currently offering an

0:28:54.680 --> 0:28:58.400
<v Speaker 1>outstanding deal for new users. Place a five dollars wager

0:28:58.440 --> 0:29:00.760
<v Speaker 1>on the winner of Best Picture, and if you win,

0:29:01.120 --> 0:29:04.160
<v Speaker 1>you win fifty dollars regardless of the odds. That is it.

0:29:04.280 --> 0:29:06.000
<v Speaker 1>And Carrie and I are gonna talk about the Best

0:29:06.000 --> 0:29:09.120
<v Speaker 1>Picture category, so you're gonna have plenty of information. You

0:29:09.160 --> 0:29:12.160
<v Speaker 1>can go to bettingpros dot com slash DraftKings for more details.

0:29:12.160 --> 0:29:14.960
<v Speaker 1>But again, if you're a new DraftKings sportsbook user and

0:29:15.040 --> 0:29:17.800
<v Speaker 1>your first wager is a five dollars bet on Best Picture,

0:29:18.000 --> 0:29:21.240
<v Speaker 1>and you're right, you'll win fifty dollars. All right, carry

0:29:21.320 --> 0:29:23.200
<v Speaker 1>let's get into it. So I think when you look

0:29:23.240 --> 0:29:27.560
<v Speaker 1>at historical awards director, Screenplay, and Picture, there's sometimes some

0:29:27.640 --> 0:29:30.640
<v Speaker 1>correlation because voters may like multiple movies, so they want

0:29:30.680 --> 0:29:33.080
<v Speaker 1>to spread out the awards a little bit in those categories.

0:29:33.160 --> 0:29:35.680
<v Speaker 1>So let's save those for last, because, as we'll talk about,

0:29:35.920 --> 0:29:38.520
<v Speaker 1>there's a bit of drama around those awards. So Lesson said,

0:29:39.000 --> 0:29:41.800
<v Speaker 1>start with the acting awards, and what's probably the one

0:29:41.960 --> 0:29:44.760
<v Speaker 1>award where there is the least amount of drama, and

0:29:44.800 --> 0:29:48.320
<v Speaker 1>that's Best Actor, where Walking Phoenix is an overwhelming favorite

0:29:48.440 --> 0:29:52.080
<v Speaker 1>at minus five thousand. Adam Driver is next at plus

0:29:52.120 --> 0:29:55.600
<v Speaker 1>one thousand, Leo DiCaprio at plus thirty three hundred, then

0:29:55.640 --> 0:29:59.640
<v Speaker 1>Antonio banderis at plus five thousand, and Jonathan Price at

0:29:59.640 --> 0:30:02.360
<v Speaker 1>plus sixty six hundred. This is the biggest favorite of

0:30:02.360 --> 0:30:05.240
<v Speaker 1>the night, Joaquin Phoenix won both the Golden Globe and

0:30:05.280 --> 0:30:08.080
<v Speaker 1>the SAG Award. Is there any chance that anyone other

0:30:08.120 --> 0:30:10.920
<v Speaker 1>than Joaquin Phoenix is going to go home with this award?

0:30:11.280 --> 0:30:15.120
<v Speaker 4>There's basically no chance, And the reason is that Hollywood

0:30:15.160 --> 0:30:18.320
<v Speaker 4>and the Academy really love a body transformation. If you

0:30:18.400 --> 0:30:22.720
<v Speaker 4>want to get super fat or super skinny for any award,

0:30:23.080 --> 0:30:25.600
<v Speaker 4>you're basically upping your chances of winning by a lot.

0:30:25.880 --> 0:30:28.680
<v Speaker 4>And this was a huge physical transformation, not to mention

0:30:29.000 --> 0:30:33.120
<v Speaker 4>a breathtaking performance. This is pretty much a lock. Only

0:30:34.120 --> 0:30:37.240
<v Speaker 4>a slight potential for Adam Driver because of how mesmerizing

0:30:37.280 --> 0:30:40.280
<v Speaker 4>he was in marriage story, But really Joaquin.

0:30:40.000 --> 0:30:43.480
<v Speaker 1>For the win. Yeah, I really Of all the awards,

0:30:43.480 --> 0:30:45.800
<v Speaker 1>there are a couple here that we'll talk about that realistically,

0:30:45.880 --> 0:30:48.040
<v Speaker 1>there's almost no chance that anybody else is gonna win

0:30:48.080 --> 0:30:50.120
<v Speaker 1>except for the favorite. But this one I think is

0:30:50.240 --> 0:30:52.640
<v Speaker 1>pretty much the lock of the night. And you mentioned

0:30:52.680 --> 0:30:56.000
<v Speaker 1>it method acting also, that's what they love. Apparently he

0:30:56.120 --> 0:30:59.080
<v Speaker 1>was basically the joker throughout filming this entire thing. That's

0:30:59.120 --> 0:31:01.160
<v Speaker 1>gonna do it and the body transformation you talked about

0:31:01.160 --> 0:31:03.560
<v Speaker 1>it Raging Bull with Robert de Niro, the gaining weight

0:31:03.600 --> 0:31:05.760
<v Speaker 1>to losing weight Daniel de Lewis, the way he basically

0:31:05.760 --> 0:31:09.280
<v Speaker 1>transforms into the character. These types of performances are absolute lock,

0:31:09.360 --> 0:31:11.400
<v Speaker 1>and that is why the odds. He was an overwhelming

0:31:11.400 --> 0:31:13.880
<v Speaker 1>favorite when the season started, but now it's basically a

0:31:13.880 --> 0:31:16.680
<v Speaker 1>complete lock. And with how little money you're gonna be

0:31:16.680 --> 0:31:19.200
<v Speaker 1>able to win, it's really not even worth betting on.

0:31:19.280 --> 0:31:21.880
<v Speaker 1>And that makes a good point before we go on,

0:31:21.920 --> 0:31:26.560
<v Speaker 1>because let's explain this to Mom, who's undoubtedly listening today. Mom, Hi, Mom,

0:31:26.600 --> 0:31:28.760
<v Speaker 1>how are you? Tears in her eyes at how successful

0:31:28.800 --> 0:31:31.600
<v Speaker 1>both their children are. When I say that Joaquin Phoenix

0:31:31.920 --> 0:31:34.760
<v Speaker 1>is at minus five thousand, that means that you would

0:31:34.800 --> 0:31:38.280
<v Speaker 1>have to risk five thousand dollars just to win one

0:31:38.360 --> 0:31:40.680
<v Speaker 1>hundred dollars, or because Mom is not good with math,

0:31:40.960 --> 0:31:43.880
<v Speaker 1>you'd have to risk fifty dollars to win one dollar,

0:31:43.960 --> 0:31:46.840
<v Speaker 1>So that's an overwhelming favorite. When I say Jonathan Price

0:31:46.920 --> 0:31:50.040
<v Speaker 1>is at plus sixty six hundred, that means he's essentially

0:31:50.200 --> 0:31:52.880
<v Speaker 1>sixty six to one. If you risk one hundred dollars

0:31:53.120 --> 0:31:56.040
<v Speaker 1>and he won, you'd win sixty six hundred dollars. So

0:31:56.080 --> 0:31:59.320
<v Speaker 1>the chances are pretty minimal now, although Mom is undoubtedly

0:31:59.360 --> 0:32:01.920
<v Speaker 1>still confused. I think everyone else probably gets it at

0:32:01.920 --> 0:32:04.320
<v Speaker 1>this point. Let's stick with the male performances here and

0:32:04.360 --> 0:32:06.800
<v Speaker 1>move on to supporting actor, where we also have an

0:32:06.840 --> 0:32:10.640
<v Speaker 1>overwhelming but not quite as overwhelming a favorite in Brad Pitt,

0:32:10.640 --> 0:32:13.800
<v Speaker 1>who's at minus four thousand, Joe Peshi's next at plus

0:32:13.840 --> 0:32:17.000
<v Speaker 1>twelve hundred, Al Pacino at plus twenty eight hundred, Tom

0:32:17.040 --> 0:32:20.120
<v Speaker 1>Hanks at plus thirty three hundred, and Anthony Hopkins at

0:32:20.160 --> 0:32:21.920
<v Speaker 1>plus five thousand. So how do you feel here? Is

0:32:21.960 --> 0:32:24.720
<v Speaker 1>Pitt guaranteed the winner? Or what he is not?

0:32:25.240 --> 0:32:28.280
<v Speaker 4>He is not guaranteed. It is a strong favorite, but

0:32:28.400 --> 0:32:31.840
<v Speaker 4>not a guarantee. Here's what will happen if, once upon

0:32:31.880 --> 0:32:36.760
<v Speaker 4>a time in Hollywood takes it, which there is a possibility.

0:32:36.040 --> 0:32:36.720
<v Speaker 1>That it does.

0:32:37.440 --> 0:32:40.800
<v Speaker 4>Then I believe this could be spread out. It could

0:32:40.800 --> 0:32:43.360
<v Speaker 4>be a shocker, and you could say, Okay, that's gonna

0:32:43.360 --> 0:32:46.600
<v Speaker 4>win Best Picture, And you know what, we're gonna maybe

0:32:46.600 --> 0:32:49.880
<v Speaker 4>even give this to Tom Hanks. You know why, because

0:32:50.000 --> 0:32:53.640
<v Speaker 4>Joile quene One, he's not that nice or likable. He's

0:32:53.680 --> 0:32:57.640
<v Speaker 4>seen as kind of this very troubled guy, and he

0:32:57.960 --> 0:33:00.520
<v Speaker 4>won for this dark performance. Let's give it to Tom

0:33:00.560 --> 0:33:04.800
<v Speaker 4>Hanks because everybody loves Tom Hanks, So that would be

0:33:05.160 --> 0:33:07.600
<v Speaker 4>a reach. I'm not saying it will happen, but I'm

0:33:07.640 --> 0:33:11.040
<v Speaker 4>saying that that's a philosophy that could if you were

0:33:11.120 --> 0:33:13.320
<v Speaker 4>somebody who wanted to bet and take.

0:33:13.200 --> 0:33:16.800
<v Speaker 1>A long shot. Interesting, well, Hank's. The one thing about Hank's, obviously,

0:33:16.840 --> 0:33:19.880
<v Speaker 1>is that his role as mister Rogers is essentially a

0:33:20.000 --> 0:33:22.400
<v Speaker 1>feel good role and the type of things that probably

0:33:22.440 --> 0:33:26.200
<v Speaker 1>Academy voters like to embrace, considering especially the time that

0:33:26.200 --> 0:33:28.280
<v Speaker 1>we're in where you know, everybody seems to be mad

0:33:28.280 --> 0:33:30.800
<v Speaker 1>at everybody. So Hanks really in that sort of role

0:33:31.040 --> 0:33:34.200
<v Speaker 1>would make an interesting choice. I think for me, though, man,

0:33:34.560 --> 0:33:36.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, Pitt has won the Globe and the SAG.

0:33:36.520 --> 0:33:38.400
<v Speaker 1>Now you mentioned a good point, and we're going to

0:33:38.440 --> 0:33:40.120
<v Speaker 1>get into this little later. And one of the reasons

0:33:40.160 --> 0:33:43.000
<v Speaker 1>why I wanted to do the Screenplay Awards, the Director Awards,

0:33:43.000 --> 0:33:45.320
<v Speaker 1>and then Best Picture last is because to me, I

0:33:45.320 --> 0:33:48.720
<v Speaker 1>feel like that is more where Academy voters like to

0:33:48.760 --> 0:33:50.959
<v Speaker 1>spread things out, right, like, yeah, we're going to talk

0:33:50.960 --> 0:33:54.360
<v Speaker 1>about this. You've got nineteen seventeen, You've got Parasite, and

0:33:54.400 --> 0:33:56.760
<v Speaker 1>you've got Once upon a Time in Hollywood. Those three

0:33:56.840 --> 0:34:00.280
<v Speaker 1>movies are really kind of you know, vying for the

0:34:00.360 --> 0:34:03.200
<v Speaker 1>big prizes in it. And it's a fair point, but

0:34:03.280 --> 0:34:05.800
<v Speaker 1>I think for me, and again, it's he's an overwhelming

0:34:05.840 --> 0:34:08.520
<v Speaker 1>favorite for a reason, obviously, and one of these overwhelming

0:34:08.520 --> 0:34:10.640
<v Speaker 1>favorites almost certainly is going to lose because that's just

0:34:10.719 --> 0:34:13.279
<v Speaker 1>kind of the way it works, is that. I think

0:34:13.320 --> 0:34:15.040
<v Speaker 1>if Pitt wins, I'm not sure whether or not it

0:34:15.040 --> 0:34:17.680
<v Speaker 1>has an impact, but it would be interesting whether or

0:34:17.680 --> 0:34:19.480
<v Speaker 1>not they would say, you know what, we're going to

0:34:19.480 --> 0:34:22.399
<v Speaker 1>give these other awards necessarily to once upon a time

0:34:22.400 --> 0:34:24.040
<v Speaker 1>in Hollywood, So why don't we give this to sort

0:34:24.080 --> 0:34:26.560
<v Speaker 1>of the feel good guy? And you're right, everybody loves

0:34:26.560 --> 0:34:29.320
<v Speaker 1>Tom Hanks. He's won two Academy Awards, although not in

0:34:29.680 --> 0:34:32.479
<v Speaker 1>twenty five years of this, that's correct, which has.

0:34:32.400 --> 0:34:33.359
<v Speaker 4>Been a long time.

0:34:33.440 --> 0:34:35.839
<v Speaker 1>It's been a long time. Mister Rogers, right, who doesn't

0:34:35.840 --> 0:34:36.600
<v Speaker 1>love mister Rodgers.

0:34:36.680 --> 0:34:39.560
<v Speaker 4>Who doesn't love mister Rogers. But the thing about Brad Pitt, now,

0:34:39.600 --> 0:34:43.319
<v Speaker 4>of course, I as a marketer, always think about the

0:34:43.360 --> 0:34:46.399
<v Speaker 4>people behind the Academy who are producing the show, who

0:34:46.400 --> 0:34:48.799
<v Speaker 4>want to make it as watchable as possible, And right

0:34:48.840 --> 0:34:52.840
<v Speaker 4>now everyone is talking about Brad Pitt. Why because Jennifer

0:34:52.880 --> 0:34:56.040
<v Speaker 4>Eniston has had a resurgence because they're both single, because

0:34:56.040 --> 0:34:59.120
<v Speaker 4>he's sober, So for that reason alone, people want to

0:34:59.160 --> 0:35:01.640
<v Speaker 4>see him get up there, don't you know. Never mind

0:35:01.680 --> 0:35:03.600
<v Speaker 4>the fact that he did have a great performance in

0:35:03.600 --> 0:35:05.960
<v Speaker 4>this film, but people want to see him get up

0:35:05.960 --> 0:35:09.120
<v Speaker 4>there because they're looking for those pictures. And the shot

0:35:09.520 --> 0:35:12.239
<v Speaker 4>of Jennifer's face as he walks up to accept.

0:35:11.880 --> 0:35:15.080
<v Speaker 1>The award also fair. And again he did give great

0:35:15.080 --> 0:35:17.440
<v Speaker 1>speeches it. I believe the SAG Awards, you know, and

0:35:17.520 --> 0:35:19.560
<v Speaker 1>that actually carries a little bit of weight because they're like,

0:35:19.600 --> 0:35:22.200
<v Speaker 1>all right, you know, Joe Peshy, I believe again, who's

0:35:22.239 --> 0:35:24.360
<v Speaker 1>the second favorite in this at plus twelve hundred for

0:35:24.360 --> 0:35:28.560
<v Speaker 1>the Irishman? When he won his award for good Fellas,

0:35:28.600 --> 0:35:31.400
<v Speaker 1>I believe his Oscar speech was thanks and then he

0:35:31.480 --> 0:35:33.640
<v Speaker 1>walked off. So I don't think, really you know that

0:35:33.800 --> 0:35:35.880
<v Speaker 1>that sticks in Oscar voters mindset.

0:35:35.960 --> 0:35:39.160
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, yes, and they don't. They don't reward people who

0:35:39.239 --> 0:35:42.799
<v Speaker 4>hate the shows. Remember Sean Penn being totally silenced for

0:35:42.840 --> 0:35:45.120
<v Speaker 4>such a long time because he just refused to attend.

0:35:45.280 --> 0:35:47.319
<v Speaker 1>That's true, but he did eventually win, of course, I

0:35:47.320 --> 0:35:50.560
<v Speaker 1>believe twice if memory service, But either way. Look, I

0:35:50.560 --> 0:35:53.160
<v Speaker 1>think you know we agree Brad Pitt is the overwhelming favorite,

0:35:53.160 --> 0:35:54.719
<v Speaker 1>but I like I like the thought that you know,

0:35:54.800 --> 0:35:57.880
<v Speaker 1>Hanks is the type of guy who, in this climate

0:35:57.920 --> 0:35:59.919
<v Speaker 1>in particular, is somebody who could sneak in there. And again,

0:36:00.000 --> 0:36:02.879
<v Speaker 1>plus thirty three hundred doesn't take a particularly large bet

0:36:02.920 --> 0:36:05.000
<v Speaker 1>to win you some money. Correct. Let's move on here

0:36:05.000 --> 0:36:08.200
<v Speaker 1>to best Supporting Actress. Again, we have another very similar favorite,

0:36:08.239 --> 0:36:11.600
<v Speaker 1>Laura Dern for Marriage Story at minus four thousand, Margot

0:36:11.640 --> 0:36:15.280
<v Speaker 1>Robbie at plus twelve hundred, Florence Pugh at plus fourteen hundred,

0:36:15.440 --> 0:36:19.160
<v Speaker 1>Scarlett Johansson double nominee here she's at plus twenty five hundred,

0:36:19.280 --> 0:36:22.320
<v Speaker 1>and my secret crush Kathy Baits at plus five thousand.

0:36:22.360 --> 0:36:25.359
<v Speaker 1>So again we haven't overwhelming. You knew that, right, I mean,

0:36:25.520 --> 0:36:27.640
<v Speaker 1>mom knows like I secretly, I am in love with

0:36:27.680 --> 0:36:30.160
<v Speaker 1>Kathy Baits. That's a story for another time. Laura Dern

0:36:30.360 --> 0:36:33.680
<v Speaker 1>at minus four thousand, overwhelming favorite. She has won both

0:36:33.719 --> 0:36:36.759
<v Speaker 1>the Golden Globe and the SAG. I loved her performance

0:36:36.840 --> 0:36:39.640
<v Speaker 1>in Marriage Story. She sort of played that, you know

0:36:39.960 --> 0:36:42.400
<v Speaker 1>that lawyer, and again I was a lawyer, so you

0:36:42.440 --> 0:36:44.640
<v Speaker 1>know we have that where even I can embrace it

0:36:44.680 --> 0:36:47.000
<v Speaker 1>and be like, man, you hated her, but you loved

0:36:47.000 --> 0:36:48.759
<v Speaker 1>her at the same time. So what do you think here?

0:36:48.800 --> 0:36:50.719
<v Speaker 1>Is Laura Drn? Is anybody else worth betting on? Or

0:36:50.719 --> 0:36:52.200
<v Speaker 1>is this during? Yeah?

0:36:52.200 --> 0:36:52.799
<v Speaker 2>This is a lock.

0:36:53.120 --> 0:36:55.840
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, no, I agree with that. And again, Lord Dern,

0:36:56.080 --> 0:36:57.759
<v Speaker 1>she's kind of beloved by the Academy. She hasn't won

0:36:57.800 --> 0:37:00.239
<v Speaker 1>an oscar, but she's been nominated a few times. And

0:37:00.280 --> 0:37:02.799
<v Speaker 1>you know what's funny is that originally Florence Pugh was

0:37:02.960 --> 0:37:06.279
<v Speaker 1>very close in odds when you know they first opened up.

0:37:06.280 --> 0:37:08.600
<v Speaker 1>But since then, Durren's got so much momentum. So this

0:37:08.719 --> 0:37:10.840
<v Speaker 1>is just a lock. Take Dern, don't look it.

0:37:10.840 --> 0:37:11.319
<v Speaker 2>It's a lock.

0:37:11.400 --> 0:37:13.839
<v Speaker 4>I might throw fifty dollars on Kathy Bates though, just to.

0:37:13.760 --> 0:37:16.279
<v Speaker 1>Support your crush. I like it, all right, I'm in

0:37:16.320 --> 0:37:18.040
<v Speaker 1>with you. We'll double it up, We'll go all right,

0:37:18.120 --> 0:37:20.520
<v Speaker 1>let's move on to Best Actress here. This is another

0:37:20.560 --> 0:37:23.040
<v Speaker 1>one with a clear favorite. But I have certain opinions

0:37:23.040 --> 0:37:25.560
<v Speaker 1>on this one, which we'll talk about. Reneesel Wigger again

0:37:25.640 --> 0:37:28.640
<v Speaker 1>at minus four thousand, just like Laura Dern, just like

0:37:28.680 --> 0:37:31.759
<v Speaker 1>Brad Pitt, Scarlett Johanson. Again, I said double nominee plus

0:37:31.840 --> 0:37:34.719
<v Speaker 1>eleven hundred. Next, that's followed by Sir Sha Ronan and

0:37:34.800 --> 0:37:38.440
<v Speaker 1>Cynthia Arrivo at plus twenty five hundred and Charlie's theron

0:37:38.520 --> 0:37:41.480
<v Speaker 1>plus thirty three hundred. Again, like all the other favorites,

0:37:41.960 --> 0:37:44.520
<v Speaker 1>reneesel Wiger won the Golden Globe and the sag Award.

0:37:44.600 --> 0:37:46.160
<v Speaker 1>So tell me what do you think is gonna happen here?

0:37:46.560 --> 0:37:46.880
<v Speaker 2>Hello?

0:37:47.120 --> 0:37:50.960
<v Speaker 4>This is a luck? Why? Because she totally transformed her appearing.

0:37:51.400 --> 0:37:54.640
<v Speaker 4>She looked just like Judy Garland Renee is a lock.

0:37:54.760 --> 0:37:57.600
<v Speaker 4>She looked like her, she sounded like her, she was her.

0:37:58.000 --> 0:38:01.160
<v Speaker 4>This is a comeback story. The Adamy loves it, and

0:38:01.200 --> 0:38:01.839
<v Speaker 4>she is a lock.

0:38:02.280 --> 0:38:06.040
<v Speaker 1>Okay, let me make the case for one other person.

0:38:06.200 --> 0:38:08.760
<v Speaker 1>I know. Look, we have to make a case. Okay,

0:38:08.840 --> 0:38:10.160
<v Speaker 1>I can't wait to hear who You're all right? Well,

0:38:10.360 --> 0:38:12.520
<v Speaker 1>who would you think? You're? My sister? You know me? Well,

0:38:12.719 --> 0:38:15.640
<v Speaker 1>well something I'm gonna go with Scarlett Johanson, Sara Sharonan,

0:38:15.760 --> 0:38:17.600
<v Speaker 1>Cynthia Rivo where Charlie's the throng.

0:38:19.480 --> 0:38:21.839
<v Speaker 4>God, I can make an argument for all of them

0:38:21.880 --> 0:38:25.480
<v Speaker 4>except for scar Joe. I could say Sarah Sharonan, who

0:38:25.480 --> 0:38:27.800
<v Speaker 4>I always say her name incorrectly, did not get the director.

0:38:27.840 --> 0:38:29.880
<v Speaker 4>Not so she should get it. I would say Cynthia

0:38:29.960 --> 0:38:32.960
<v Speaker 4>Arrivo had a phenomenal performance and of course would help

0:38:33.040 --> 0:38:36.520
<v Speaker 4>represent the African American community with Oscar being oh so white.

0:38:36.920 --> 0:38:39.960
<v Speaker 4>And then Charlie's of course supports my physical transformation story

0:38:40.000 --> 0:38:42.400
<v Speaker 4>and actually looked exactly like Megan Kelly.

0:38:42.520 --> 0:38:44.959
<v Speaker 1>She did yes, absolutely well. For me, it's a revo

0:38:45.040 --> 0:38:48.120
<v Speaker 1>and it's not. Look, Zellwegger is the overwhelming favorite. I'm

0:38:48.160 --> 0:38:50.320
<v Speaker 1>gonna put a taste where I can on a revote

0:38:50.440 --> 0:38:52.440
<v Speaker 1>just again, you mentioned it. It is the story of

0:38:52.480 --> 0:38:55.880
<v Speaker 1>Harriet Tubman. It is a historical figure. It is somebody

0:38:55.920 --> 0:38:59.279
<v Speaker 1>who's extremely important. And look, it's just a fact of

0:38:59.280 --> 0:39:01.719
<v Speaker 1>life that the can me gets a great deal of

0:39:01.840 --> 0:39:04.560
<v Speaker 1>blowback when there aren't a lot of you know, African

0:39:04.560 --> 0:39:07.160
<v Speaker 1>American nominees, and you know, for women, we'll talk about

0:39:07.200 --> 0:39:09.160
<v Speaker 1>that with Little Women, with Gretg Gerwig not getting the

0:39:09.160 --> 0:39:12.120
<v Speaker 1>best director, Get me started. They're well, you're gonna have

0:39:12.120 --> 0:39:14.040
<v Speaker 1>to get started, because we'll talk about it. But there

0:39:14.080 --> 0:39:16.839
<v Speaker 1>are you know, these these when when you're at a

0:39:17.160 --> 0:39:19.840
<v Speaker 1>something like this, I could see Zewig getting it. Remember

0:39:19.840 --> 0:39:22.760
<v Speaker 1>though she's won before. She's got one for cold Mountains.

0:39:22.800 --> 0:39:24.919
<v Speaker 1>So you know, it's not as if this would be like, well,

0:39:25.000 --> 0:39:26.719
<v Speaker 1>you know, she's had this long, storied career. We have

0:39:26.760 --> 0:39:29.520
<v Speaker 1>to honor her. It is something where men, if somebody

0:39:29.520 --> 0:39:32.240
<v Speaker 1>else is gonna win, to me, Cynthia Rivo, Harriet Tubman,

0:39:32.320 --> 0:39:34.480
<v Speaker 1>that's just you know, a historical figure. I feel like,

0:39:34.719 --> 0:39:36.960
<v Speaker 1>usually a good shot for Best Actress. So for me, yes,

0:39:37.239 --> 0:39:40.000
<v Speaker 1>who do I expect to win? Rense Elwiger, I agree,

0:39:40.120 --> 0:39:42.359
<v Speaker 1>But if I were to pick somebody else, it would

0:39:42.400 --> 0:39:44.960
<v Speaker 1>be Cynthia Rivo because I do think, given all of

0:39:45.000 --> 0:39:47.239
<v Speaker 1>these outside factors, that she's the only other one who

0:39:47.239 --> 0:39:47.760
<v Speaker 1>has a shot.

0:39:48.120 --> 0:39:51.400
<v Speaker 4>Well, I will tell you this. I absolutely loved Renees

0:39:51.400 --> 0:39:55.400
<v Speaker 4>Elwiger's performance. However, I also loved Cynthia Rivo's performance, and

0:39:55.680 --> 0:39:58.160
<v Speaker 4>if she won, I would jump for joy. Now you're

0:39:58.160 --> 0:39:59.640
<v Speaker 4>giving me a bet that I think I'm going to take.

0:39:59.680 --> 0:40:01.640
<v Speaker 1>There, I love it. And also, by the way, I

0:40:01.640 --> 0:40:04.920
<v Speaker 1>have a writing candidate to get Kathy Baits also nominated.

0:40:04.480 --> 0:40:06.520
<v Speaker 4>For Super Kathy Baits for all categories.

0:40:07.640 --> 0:40:11.280
<v Speaker 1>Well a Best Actor, don't forget about that. Okay, yeah, correct,

0:40:11.400 --> 0:40:13.839
<v Speaker 1>Let's go real quick to adapted screenplay, because I don't

0:40:13.880 --> 0:40:15.840
<v Speaker 1>think this moves the needle much with Best Picture. I

0:40:15.880 --> 0:40:18.880
<v Speaker 1>think whoever wins the original screenplay that's really more important.

0:40:18.880 --> 0:40:21.960
<v Speaker 1>But let's go here. Jojo Rabbit actually the favorite at

0:40:22.000 --> 0:40:24.120
<v Speaker 1>minus two hundred. So I mean we were talking about

0:40:24.120 --> 0:40:26.840
<v Speaker 1>the actors minus four thousand, minus five thousand. This is

0:40:26.840 --> 0:40:28.640
<v Speaker 1>all the way minus two hundred. So this is certainly

0:40:28.680 --> 0:40:31.520
<v Speaker 1>a much closer race. Little Women second at plus one

0:40:31.520 --> 0:40:33.400
<v Speaker 1>point fifty. Then you got to jump down to the

0:40:33.440 --> 0:40:35.719
<v Speaker 1>Irishman at plus eight hundred, then a longer jump to

0:40:35.760 --> 0:40:38.480
<v Speaker 1>the Joker at plus four thousand, and the two Popes

0:40:38.800 --> 0:40:40.880
<v Speaker 1>at plus five thousand. I'm going to say this, this

0:40:40.920 --> 0:40:43.640
<v Speaker 1>has shifted in recent weeks. Okay, Little Women was the

0:40:43.640 --> 0:40:47.120
<v Speaker 1>favorite for a while. Then Jojo Rabbit taiko wa tit.

0:40:47.280 --> 0:40:50.560
<v Speaker 1>She won the he won the Writer's Guild Awards. So

0:40:51.000 --> 0:40:53.520
<v Speaker 1>you know that really is what has moved these odds

0:40:53.520 --> 0:40:56.120
<v Speaker 1>here towards Jojo Rabbit. So how do you feel about

0:40:56.160 --> 0:40:56.439
<v Speaker 1>this one?

0:40:57.719 --> 0:40:59.719
<v Speaker 4>If I were betting on my favorite, I would take

0:40:59.719 --> 0:41:03.040
<v Speaker 4>the long shot for the two popes. However, here I

0:41:03.080 --> 0:41:06.960
<v Speaker 4>would bet Little Women because they have to win after

0:41:07.080 --> 0:41:10.200
<v Speaker 4>the huge director snub. I mean to me, it's like

0:41:11.000 --> 0:41:12.800
<v Speaker 4>that they have to win.

0:41:13.280 --> 0:41:15.520
<v Speaker 1>And not only that, I mean, this isn't just honoring

0:41:15.560 --> 0:41:18.920
<v Speaker 1>the movie. This is Gerwig herself, right, who was exactly

0:41:19.000 --> 0:41:22.239
<v Speaker 1>who's one of the writers who's nominated for screenplay. Yeah,

0:41:22.360 --> 0:41:25.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm surprised here, honestly, Like I get the Writer's Guild

0:41:25.040 --> 0:41:28.000
<v Speaker 1>of America is you know, fairly predictive, and it contains

0:41:28.000 --> 0:41:29.439
<v Speaker 1>a big body of people who are going to vote

0:41:29.440 --> 0:41:31.960
<v Speaker 1>on the stuff. So I understand why it moved the odds.

0:41:32.000 --> 0:41:35.000
<v Speaker 1>But in the end, they're Little Women's coming away with something.

0:41:35.000 --> 0:41:37.360
<v Speaker 1>And I don't you know, they've got all the actress nominations.

0:41:37.400 --> 0:41:39.880
<v Speaker 1>I don't think they're gonna win any but this one.

0:41:40.040 --> 0:41:42.120
<v Speaker 1>Come on, it's Greta Gerwig. There was all the talk

0:41:42.160 --> 0:41:44.799
<v Speaker 1>how she didn't get a director nomination. I really think

0:41:44.840 --> 0:41:47.560
<v Speaker 1>and you're getting plus you know, on your money, not overwhelming,

0:41:47.600 --> 0:41:49.160
<v Speaker 1>but the fact that it's not the favorite, I agree

0:41:49.160 --> 0:41:50.799
<v Speaker 1>with you completely. I think Little Women's going to take

0:41:50.800 --> 0:41:51.120
<v Speaker 1>those home.

0:41:51.560 --> 0:41:53.880
<v Speaker 4>I'm trying to think about why the odds shifted, and

0:41:53.960 --> 0:41:55.920
<v Speaker 4>I guess it could be that Jojo Rabbit Now is

0:41:55.960 --> 0:42:00.560
<v Speaker 4>widely released over OTT so it may be gain buzz

0:42:00.640 --> 0:42:04.800
<v Speaker 4>or gaining momentum. It certainly is a very innovative story.

0:42:05.320 --> 0:42:08.600
<v Speaker 4>But I just think too. You can't do gredit dirty

0:42:08.680 --> 0:42:09.040
<v Speaker 4>like that.

0:42:09.040 --> 0:42:11.080
<v Speaker 1>That's not right. No, I completely agree with you.

0:42:11.120 --> 0:42:11.160
<v Speaker 2>No.

0:42:11.239 --> 0:42:14.520
<v Speaker 1>And again, when these odds first opened, when the Academy

0:42:14.560 --> 0:42:18.680
<v Speaker 1>was first nominade, I believe that Jojo Rabbit, that White

0:42:18.680 --> 0:42:22.160
<v Speaker 1>Titi was third in the odds. Originally, like this was,

0:42:22.440 --> 0:42:24.120
<v Speaker 1>this was not a favorite. And again it really has

0:42:24.160 --> 0:42:26.759
<v Speaker 1>moved significantly. And one of the things that's weird about

0:42:26.760 --> 0:42:29.239
<v Speaker 1>the Oscars this here is it's so early, right, because

0:42:29.280 --> 0:42:32.640
<v Speaker 1>I think eventually what happened is that the odds, you know, people,

0:42:33.480 --> 0:42:35.800
<v Speaker 1>it became a lot easier to protect, except Best Picture,

0:42:35.840 --> 0:42:37.520
<v Speaker 1>and we'll talk about that in a bit, but it

0:42:37.600 --> 0:42:39.719
<v Speaker 1>became much easier to pretict. Now that's earlier, there's a

0:42:39.719 --> 0:42:41.920
<v Speaker 1>little uncertainty. So it's nice on the move. So we

0:42:41.960 --> 0:42:44.520
<v Speaker 1>are in agreement here. We both think that Little Women

0:42:44.840 --> 0:42:47.080
<v Speaker 1>is going to take home Adapted screenplay, So let us

0:42:47.080 --> 0:42:49.399
<v Speaker 1>move on to original screenplay. This is a good one here.

0:42:50.040 --> 0:42:53.160
<v Speaker 1>It's really, you know, a race between two and that's Parasite,

0:42:53.160 --> 0:42:55.960
<v Speaker 1>which is the favorite at minus two hundred versus Once

0:42:56.040 --> 0:42:58.640
<v Speaker 1>upon a Time in Hollywood, which is at plus one fifty.

0:42:58.680 --> 0:43:00.640
<v Speaker 1>Then you jump down a bit to marriage story, also

0:43:00.760 --> 0:43:05.040
<v Speaker 1>an incredibly well written film at plus oney nineteen seventeen

0:43:05.360 --> 0:43:08.240
<v Speaker 1>at plus two thousand, and knives out at plus three thousand.

0:43:08.280 --> 0:43:10.320
<v Speaker 1>The one thing I will say, nineteen seventeen, a movie

0:43:10.360 --> 0:43:13.400
<v Speaker 1>that I loved, has like eight words of dialogue, so

0:43:13.440 --> 0:43:15.360
<v Speaker 1>it's a little surprising to me that it was nominated

0:43:15.360 --> 0:43:17.560
<v Speaker 1>for Original Screenplay. But what do you think here? This

0:43:17.600 --> 0:43:18.200
<v Speaker 1>is a big one.

0:43:19.280 --> 0:43:23.120
<v Speaker 4>This is all about the link between these awards. So

0:43:24.120 --> 0:43:28.160
<v Speaker 4>whichever there is a chance here of the screenplay best

0:43:28.160 --> 0:43:31.960
<v Speaker 4>Picture split right, So if Parasite doesn't win Best Picture,

0:43:32.360 --> 0:43:36.440
<v Speaker 4>it will almost certainly win Original Screenplay. It's almost like

0:43:37.040 --> 0:43:39.760
<v Speaker 4>it's gonna be the in my mind, the runner up prize.

0:43:39.800 --> 0:43:42.480
<v Speaker 4>Whoever you think is going to win Best Picture, you

0:43:42.560 --> 0:43:45.919
<v Speaker 4>have to pick the other for original screenplay, right.

0:43:46.000 --> 0:43:48.120
<v Speaker 1>And the thing is, because we'll get to this too.

0:43:48.360 --> 0:43:51.520
<v Speaker 1>You could see, okay, let's split up screenplay and Best

0:43:51.520 --> 0:43:55.160
<v Speaker 1>Picture and Best Director. The problem is, as we'll get

0:43:55.200 --> 0:43:58.400
<v Speaker 1>to of the these three kind of major most predictive awards,

0:43:58.480 --> 0:44:01.120
<v Speaker 1>best Director is pretty much a lock. I mean, I'm

0:44:01.160 --> 0:44:03.959
<v Speaker 1>going to be shocked in Sam Mendy for nineteen seventy

0:44:03.960 --> 0:44:06.879
<v Speaker 1>that's at so that's almost certainly doing it. So if

0:44:06.880 --> 0:44:09.720
<v Speaker 1>you have that. I will be shocked it could happen,

0:44:09.800 --> 0:44:11.640
<v Speaker 1>and we'll talk about why in a minute. But once

0:44:11.719 --> 0:44:14.400
<v Speaker 1>upon a time in Hollywood could win Best Picture. But

0:44:14.440 --> 0:44:16.680
<v Speaker 1>I think Parasite has just been gaining steam. And we

0:44:16.719 --> 0:44:18.920
<v Speaker 1>will talk about the text that you sent me roughly

0:44:18.920 --> 0:44:22.120
<v Speaker 1>two months ago predicting that Parasite was going to win

0:44:22.200 --> 0:44:24.000
<v Speaker 1>Best Picture before I had ever even heard of it.

0:44:24.040 --> 0:44:26.160
<v Speaker 1>But I will say this, once upon a Time in

0:44:26.200 --> 0:44:29.200
<v Speaker 1>Hollywood won the Golden Globe Award. It was not even

0:44:29.360 --> 0:44:32.360
<v Speaker 1>nominated for Best Screenplay for the Writer's Guild Award. That

0:44:32.480 --> 0:44:36.879
<v Speaker 1>is really, really weird, and I can't exactly figure it out.

0:44:37.160 --> 0:44:41.040
<v Speaker 1>Parasite did win that award, So I mean, for me.

0:44:41.440 --> 0:44:44.400
<v Speaker 4>You can't figure out why it wasn't nominated. There you're saying,

0:44:44.440 --> 0:44:45.960
<v Speaker 4>not why it's nominated here?

0:44:46.080 --> 0:44:48.680
<v Speaker 1>Oh correct, yes, absolutely no, no, no, no, I have absolutely

0:44:48.719 --> 0:44:51.520
<v Speaker 1>no problem. I apologize for it being nominated here. But

0:44:51.560 --> 0:44:54.640
<v Speaker 1>the fact especially it won the Golden Globe, and the

0:44:54.640 --> 0:44:56.480
<v Speaker 1>Golden Globe is kind of an outlier, right, It's not

0:44:56.520 --> 0:44:59.879
<v Speaker 1>all that predictive. It's a completely different body. The how

0:45:00.000 --> 0:45:03.040
<v Speaker 1>press association form pressociations, so it's a completely different body.

0:45:03.280 --> 0:45:05.680
<v Speaker 1>But in the end to not even be nominated for

0:45:05.719 --> 0:45:08.319
<v Speaker 1>their Writers Skilled Award really surprised me. Again, that's a

0:45:08.360 --> 0:45:13.080
<v Speaker 1>big voting block of this award, So for me, I

0:45:13.160 --> 0:45:15.600
<v Speaker 1>think I'll go with Parasite. But you know, and that

0:45:15.760 --> 0:45:17.840
<v Speaker 1>is actually one of the reasons why I do think

0:45:18.120 --> 0:45:19.840
<v Speaker 1>to the extent they do want to honor them. And

0:45:19.880 --> 0:45:21.960
<v Speaker 1>I said, for the most part, they don't go to actors.

0:45:22.120 --> 0:45:24.440
<v Speaker 1>But Pitt I think is pretty much going to win

0:45:24.480 --> 0:45:26.439
<v Speaker 1>that award, and that could be their way of saying, Okay,

0:45:26.440 --> 0:45:28.120
<v Speaker 1>there you go, there's that award. You know what I mean?

0:45:28.880 --> 0:45:29.239
<v Speaker 2>I do.

0:45:29.680 --> 0:45:32.840
<v Speaker 4>I think because I felt so strongly about Parasite early

0:45:33.040 --> 0:45:35.960
<v Speaker 4>and you have saved the text where I immediately felt

0:45:36.040 --> 0:45:37.920
<v Speaker 4>that this was something that was going to gain steam.

0:45:38.400 --> 0:45:41.480
<v Speaker 4>I am therefore not going to put it for Best Screenplay.

0:45:41.560 --> 0:45:44.160
<v Speaker 4>I am going to put for Original Screenplay. Once upon

0:45:44.200 --> 0:45:46.440
<v Speaker 4>a Time in Hollywood. Now, not only was that a

0:45:46.520 --> 0:45:49.360
<v Speaker 4>very interesting story, but the way that it was told

0:45:50.120 --> 0:45:53.200
<v Speaker 4>was fascinating, and the way that it's tied in reality

0:45:53.280 --> 0:45:56.560
<v Speaker 4>with an alternate reality of these kind of Hollywood legends

0:45:56.560 --> 0:46:01.440
<v Speaker 4>and long history in Hollywood. I think that Hollywood is

0:46:01.440 --> 0:46:03.600
<v Speaker 4>in love with itself. The Academy is in love with itself.

0:46:03.640 --> 0:46:06.960
<v Speaker 4>And so this will win something, and I think this

0:46:07.000 --> 0:46:07.840
<v Speaker 4>is where it's going to go.

0:46:08.320 --> 0:46:11.800
<v Speaker 1>Well, it certainly would make sense if this one original

0:46:12.000 --> 0:46:15.240
<v Speaker 1>if one supon time in Hollywood won Original Screenplay nineteen seventeen,

0:46:15.280 --> 0:46:17.560
<v Speaker 1>Sam and he's one Best Director, and then Parisi wins

0:46:17.560 --> 0:46:19.040
<v Speaker 1>Best Picture, it would be a way to honor all

0:46:19.080 --> 0:46:19.359
<v Speaker 1>of them.

0:46:19.400 --> 0:46:21.520
<v Speaker 4>So I don't really does it happen, Dan, does that

0:46:21.600 --> 0:46:24.680
<v Speaker 4>happen usually? You know, you have this long history of

0:46:24.719 --> 0:46:26.399
<v Speaker 4>knowing every Oscar winner under the sun.

0:46:26.719 --> 0:46:29.080
<v Speaker 1>That's true. The one thing is that things have changed

0:46:29.120 --> 0:46:31.799
<v Speaker 1>a little bit, in part because of the fact that

0:46:31.880 --> 0:46:35.560
<v Speaker 1>it went from being five nominated Best Pictures, where the

0:46:35.680 --> 0:46:39.000
<v Speaker 1>universe was always much smaller, to nine and or ten

0:46:39.200 --> 0:46:41.000
<v Speaker 1>up to ten and this year it's line. So it

0:46:41.680 --> 0:46:44.560
<v Speaker 1>doesn't usually work like that. There aren't these three movies

0:46:44.560 --> 0:46:47.239
<v Speaker 1>that everybody's like, Oh, I really want to, you know,

0:46:47.320 --> 0:46:49.640
<v Speaker 1>evaluate it and give some love to So I would

0:46:49.680 --> 0:46:52.239
<v Speaker 1>say not winning for screenplay. It used to be Best

0:46:52.280 --> 0:46:55.280
<v Speaker 1>Director and Best Picture were completely correlated, but in recent

0:46:55.360 --> 0:46:57.839
<v Speaker 1>years it's been a huge split with that. So at

0:46:57.840 --> 0:47:00.520
<v Speaker 1>this point, the way it would split, it's it's not

0:47:01.000 --> 0:47:03.680
<v Speaker 1>that surprising that it would happen historically, though, it'd be

0:47:03.680 --> 0:47:04.399
<v Speaker 1>pretty rare, I.

0:47:04.320 --> 0:47:06.759
<v Speaker 4>Think, especially looking at the odds, though I would not

0:47:06.800 --> 0:47:09.400
<v Speaker 4>bet personally. I would not bet Parasite on that because

0:47:09.480 --> 0:47:12.600
<v Speaker 4>it's it's not enough skin in the game to actually matter,

0:47:12.680 --> 0:47:15.160
<v Speaker 4>and once upon a time in Hollywood has some and

0:47:15.239 --> 0:47:16.720
<v Speaker 4>so I would bet this here.

0:47:16.960 --> 0:47:20.120
<v Speaker 1>Yep, I think that's an absolutely fair take. Now, Best Director,

0:47:20.160 --> 0:47:22.919
<v Speaker 1>we mentioned it briefly. Sounds like we're both in agreement here.

0:47:23.000 --> 0:47:27.160
<v Speaker 1>Sam Mendy's the overwhelming favorite at minus nine hundred, Bang

0:47:27.239 --> 0:47:30.960
<v Speaker 1>Juno at plus four fifty for Parasite, Quentin Tarantino at

0:47:30.960 --> 0:47:34.400
<v Speaker 1>plus seventeen hundred, Martin Scorsese at plus four thousand, and

0:47:34.480 --> 0:47:38.160
<v Speaker 1>Todd Phillips at plus five thousand. So again, Sam Mendy's

0:47:38.200 --> 0:47:40.480
<v Speaker 1>he won the Golden Globe, he won the DGA. The

0:47:40.560 --> 0:47:43.520
<v Speaker 1>DGA the Director's Guild of America Awards. They are the

0:47:43.560 --> 0:47:46.359
<v Speaker 1>most predictive award by far. If you win that, you

0:47:46.360 --> 0:47:49.520
<v Speaker 1>know all. But I think it's seven over the last

0:47:49.560 --> 0:47:52.359
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, like fifty sixty years have wound up

0:47:52.400 --> 0:47:55.000
<v Speaker 1>winning the Oscar for Best Director, so incredibly predictive. So

0:47:55.440 --> 0:47:58.000
<v Speaker 1>are we in agreement here that Sam Mendes is basically

0:47:58.200 --> 0:48:01.759
<v Speaker 1>walking home with this award. Yes, all right, let me

0:48:01.800 --> 0:48:06.080
<v Speaker 1>ask let me just try to throw one little tiny,

0:48:06.160 --> 0:48:08.960
<v Speaker 1>it'sy bitsy wrinkle into it in our sort of They

0:48:09.040 --> 0:48:11.080
<v Speaker 1>want to honor all these movies, so let's see how

0:48:11.120 --> 0:48:13.799
<v Speaker 1>they're able to break it down. Quentin Tarantino has been

0:48:13.800 --> 0:48:16.200
<v Speaker 1>around for a long time, right. He's made a number

0:48:16.280 --> 0:48:20.520
<v Speaker 1>of highly regarded films that have been, you know, nominated

0:48:20.560 --> 0:48:23.160
<v Speaker 1>for Oscars. He won Best Screenplay, I believe, for Pulp

0:48:23.239 --> 0:48:25.560
<v Speaker 1>Fiction and it was nominated, and he was nominated in

0:48:25.640 --> 0:48:28.840
<v Speaker 1>Glorious Bastards. He's obviously been around the while. I believe

0:48:28.880 --> 0:48:31.600
<v Speaker 1>he has said that he is making one more film

0:48:31.920 --> 0:48:34.640
<v Speaker 1>after this and that is it and then he is done.

0:48:35.239 --> 0:48:39.000
<v Speaker 1>And if that's true, is there any chance it's plus

0:48:39.040 --> 0:48:41.279
<v Speaker 1>seventeen hundred? It's a big log shot. Is there any

0:48:41.440 --> 0:48:43.360
<v Speaker 1>chance that the Academy is gonna be like, you know what,

0:48:43.400 --> 0:48:44.920
<v Speaker 1>we don't know what that last film is gonna be.

0:48:44.960 --> 0:48:46.719
<v Speaker 1>He said he might be a star Trek he's been

0:48:46.719 --> 0:48:49.360
<v Speaker 1>talking about. So it may not even have a chance

0:48:49.440 --> 0:48:52.000
<v Speaker 1>to be nominated for an Oscar. This could be their

0:48:52.080 --> 0:48:55.880
<v Speaker 1>last chance to nominate Tarantino. Is there any way anyway

0:48:56.000 --> 0:48:57.600
<v Speaker 1>to be clear? I don't think there is I'm just

0:48:57.600 --> 0:48:59.239
<v Speaker 1>throwing out food for thought, but is there any way

0:48:59.280 --> 0:49:01.560
<v Speaker 1>Tarantino plus seventeen hundred. That's a lot on your money

0:49:01.680 --> 0:49:04.200
<v Speaker 1>that there could be a curveball here and that the

0:49:04.239 --> 0:49:06.759
<v Speaker 1>Oscar could go to Tarantino for once upon a time

0:49:06.760 --> 0:49:08.440
<v Speaker 1>in Hollywood at plus seventeen hundred.

0:49:09.440 --> 0:49:12.000
<v Speaker 4>Look, I think odds are odds for a reason, because

0:49:12.040 --> 0:49:14.080
<v Speaker 4>the ones that are most likely to win often have

0:49:14.160 --> 0:49:16.759
<v Speaker 4>the best odds. I think it's a fair point and

0:49:16.840 --> 0:49:20.840
<v Speaker 4>an interesting point, and a good kind of long shot.

0:49:21.080 --> 0:49:23.080
<v Speaker 4>If you're looking at if you say, you know what,

0:49:23.719 --> 0:49:27.319
<v Speaker 4>that's possible, that's a hypothesis I could get behind. So

0:49:27.880 --> 0:49:30.359
<v Speaker 4>I think it's interesting. I mean, I'm not a huge

0:49:30.400 --> 0:49:35.000
<v Speaker 4>Tarantino fan anyway, which I'm sure most of the listeners

0:49:35.000 --> 0:49:37.040
<v Speaker 4>that you will have here will probably hate me for that.

0:49:37.120 --> 0:49:40.960
<v Speaker 4>But I did enjoy this film by far more than

0:49:41.000 --> 0:49:44.400
<v Speaker 4>his other films. So I think it's a shot.

0:49:44.480 --> 0:49:46.880
<v Speaker 1>It's a chance, it's a chance, it's a chance.

0:49:47.160 --> 0:49:50.840
<v Speaker 4>It certainly makes for an interesting chat, interesting podcast.

0:49:51.120 --> 0:49:53.279
<v Speaker 1>I like it. That is a very delicate way of

0:49:53.320 --> 0:49:55.840
<v Speaker 1>saying that you disagree strongly, and I really appreciate it.

0:49:55.880 --> 0:49:58.120
<v Speaker 1>But yeah, Sam Menda is gonna win.

0:49:58.160 --> 0:49:59.200
<v Speaker 4>It's all in one shot.

0:49:59.320 --> 0:50:00.400
<v Speaker 1>It's beauty. It's all.

0:50:00.440 --> 0:50:02.960
<v Speaker 4>You should see it in the theater, all of it.

0:50:02.960 --> 0:50:06.120
<v Speaker 1>It is gorgeous. It's a wonderful movie. I do love it,

0:50:06.160 --> 0:50:08.200
<v Speaker 1>and I am gonna let you know that after this,

0:50:08.640 --> 0:50:12.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to change my Twitter profile to quick to

0:50:12.239 --> 0:50:16.400
<v Speaker 1>add in the quote that's a hypothesis I could get behind,

0:50:16.520 --> 0:50:18.239
<v Speaker 1>because I think that that's going to be my new

0:50:18.239 --> 0:50:18.719
<v Speaker 1>life model.

0:50:18.719 --> 0:50:20.120
<v Speaker 4>All right, I thought you were going to change it

0:50:20.120 --> 0:50:21.280
<v Speaker 4>to I Love Kathy Bates.

0:50:21.640 --> 0:50:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think I have a restraining order against me,

0:50:25.040 --> 0:50:26.880
<v Speaker 1>so I have to be careful. Okay, let's go on

0:50:26.960 --> 0:50:29.520
<v Speaker 1>to Best Picture here, the big one. This is it.

0:50:29.680 --> 0:50:33.439
<v Speaker 1>We've talked about it. It's it's really a three way race,

0:50:33.480 --> 0:50:36.880
<v Speaker 1>as we talked about. But you know, Joker, I believe

0:50:36.920 --> 0:50:39.680
<v Speaker 1>has the most nominations here with eleven, so that's always

0:50:39.760 --> 0:50:41.480
<v Speaker 1>kind of a predictive for Best Picture. But let's talk

0:50:41.520 --> 0:50:44.799
<v Speaker 1>about the odds here. Nineteen seventeen is the current favorite.

0:50:44.840 --> 0:50:47.240
<v Speaker 1>They're at minus two fifty, so that's a fair favorite

0:50:47.239 --> 0:50:49.600
<v Speaker 1>at this point when you're talking about Best Picture. Parasite

0:50:49.680 --> 0:50:52.480
<v Speaker 1>is next at plus three twenty five. That's a pretty

0:50:52.480 --> 0:50:54.920
<v Speaker 1>big difference between the two I'm a little surprised that

0:50:54.960 --> 0:50:56.960
<v Speaker 1>it's that different. Once upon a Time in Hollywood at

0:50:57.000 --> 0:51:00.360
<v Speaker 1>plus eight hundred, Joker at plus twelve hundred, and nobody

0:51:00.400 --> 0:51:02.520
<v Speaker 1>else has a realistic chance, but I will add them

0:51:02.520 --> 0:51:05.120
<v Speaker 1>in The Irishman at plus five thousand, Jojo Rabbit at

0:51:05.160 --> 0:51:08.240
<v Speaker 1>plus sixty six hundred, Little Women at plus eight thousand,

0:51:08.600 --> 0:51:12.120
<v Speaker 1>Marriage Story at plus ten thousand and four, v Ferrari

0:51:12.640 --> 0:51:15.239
<v Speaker 1>at plus twenty five thousand. So let's just break this

0:51:15.320 --> 0:51:18.640
<v Speaker 1>down for very quickly. The nineteen seventeen won the Golden

0:51:18.680 --> 0:51:22.000
<v Speaker 1>Globe for Best Picture in a Drama, Once Upon a

0:51:22.040 --> 0:51:27.160
<v Speaker 1>Time won Best Golden Globe for Best Picture Comedy or Musical,

0:51:27.400 --> 0:51:30.960
<v Speaker 1>and Parasite won the SAG Awards. So it's all over

0:51:30.960 --> 0:51:32.880
<v Speaker 1>the place. So I look, I have a text. I

0:51:32.920 --> 0:51:34.719
<v Speaker 1>can read the text, so I know exactly what you're

0:51:34.719 --> 0:51:36.920
<v Speaker 1>going to say. But go ahead. You think that Parasite

0:51:36.920 --> 0:51:39.440
<v Speaker 1>is taking this home. Huh.

0:51:39.480 --> 0:51:44.239
<v Speaker 4>Well, I think that nineteen seventeen is the heavy favorite,

0:51:44.760 --> 0:51:47.680
<v Speaker 4>but I want to see Parasite win, and I think

0:51:47.760 --> 0:51:51.520
<v Speaker 4>there can be a good upset. I'm actually upset that

0:51:51.560 --> 0:51:54.719
<v Speaker 4>the odds have come this close. There's a big spread here, obviously,

0:51:54.719 --> 0:51:58.239
<v Speaker 4>from negative two fifty to three twenty five. However, I

0:51:58.239 --> 0:52:00.799
<v Speaker 4>thought it would be even farther way. But this has

0:52:00.840 --> 0:52:06.719
<v Speaker 4>been mementom sad did me dirty. I'm not happy about it.

0:52:06.760 --> 0:52:09.160
<v Speaker 4>But the reason I think Parasite will win. First of all,

0:52:09.840 --> 0:52:12.680
<v Speaker 4>I think it was like the Shocker of the year,

0:52:12.880 --> 0:52:15.759
<v Speaker 4>like you didn't expect anything from it. You didn't have

0:52:15.840 --> 0:52:17.640
<v Speaker 4>any idea what was going to happen in the movie.

0:52:17.680 --> 0:52:19.680
<v Speaker 4>I mean, we were just sitting there in that film, like,

0:52:20.680 --> 0:52:23.680
<v Speaker 4>oh my goodness, about halfway through and we had no

0:52:23.760 --> 0:52:29.360
<v Speaker 4>idea what to expect. And it was fantastic, surprising, interesting,

0:52:29.440 --> 0:52:35.120
<v Speaker 4>beautifully acted all of the things. And it's also not white,

0:52:35.480 --> 0:52:38.319
<v Speaker 4>and I think that would be the showing that they

0:52:38.360 --> 0:52:40.440
<v Speaker 4>need this has enough odds to make it close. I mean,

0:52:40.920 --> 0:52:45.080
<v Speaker 4>Cynthia Rivo is far away. I love that argument, you know,

0:52:45.120 --> 0:52:47.840
<v Speaker 4>I'd love if she wanted. But but Parasite, I think

0:52:48.239 --> 0:52:50.880
<v Speaker 4>could be a good representation of showing that, no, we

0:52:51.000 --> 0:52:56.920
<v Speaker 4>don't always select every war movie, mobster movie, you know,

0:52:56.960 --> 0:53:00.520
<v Speaker 4>every every typical movie that you see. We do have

0:53:01.000 --> 0:53:03.040
<v Speaker 4>a depth to us and we do pick things that

0:53:03.080 --> 0:53:06.600
<v Speaker 4>are sometimes unexpected. This to me felt very much like

0:53:06.719 --> 0:53:10.480
<v Speaker 4>the crash moment where I saw it, and I was like, no,

0:53:10.640 --> 0:53:14.520
<v Speaker 4>this is it. Even though even though it wasn't necessarily

0:53:14.800 --> 0:53:17.600
<v Speaker 4>the best of the films Crash at the time, I

0:53:17.719 --> 0:53:20.840
<v Speaker 4>just knew it based on what was happening in the world,

0:53:20.880 --> 0:53:23.720
<v Speaker 4>and I kind of feel like with Parasite it's the same.

0:53:24.200 --> 0:53:28.000
<v Speaker 1>So the one thing that makes this award much more

0:53:28.040 --> 0:53:30.080
<v Speaker 1>difficult to predict, I think than any other award is

0:53:30.160 --> 0:53:32.920
<v Speaker 1>that this is not done in the same way that

0:53:33.640 --> 0:53:36.920
<v Speaker 1>other awards are done. You rank these awards, the voters

0:53:37.040 --> 0:53:39.480
<v Speaker 1>rank them, so you literally go there and you rank

0:53:39.800 --> 0:53:43.960
<v Speaker 1>your choices, and so you could conceivably be Parasite, could

0:53:44.000 --> 0:53:47.439
<v Speaker 1>be no voter's first choice, and could be every voter

0:53:47.600 --> 0:53:51.200
<v Speaker 1>second choice and win the Oscar for Best Picture, because

0:53:51.200 --> 0:53:53.880
<v Speaker 1>in the end it winds up with however they tabulated

0:53:53.880 --> 0:53:56.520
<v Speaker 1>based on the ranking. So this one is really difficult

0:53:56.560 --> 0:54:00.680
<v Speaker 1>to predict. So look, Parasite is a funment. I mean it.

0:54:01.040 --> 0:54:02.440
<v Speaker 1>You know, it reminds you a lot of get out

0:54:02.520 --> 0:54:06.240
<v Speaker 1>right that sort of thing, nineteen seventeen and you know, yeah,

0:54:06.320 --> 0:54:08.400
<v Speaker 1>it's the war movie. It's kind of like the classic

0:54:08.520 --> 0:54:12.680
<v Speaker 1>or like whatever. To me, I'm gonna I it the

0:54:12.840 --> 0:54:15.160
<v Speaker 1>I don't love the odds rankly because I think, you know,

0:54:15.239 --> 0:54:16.920
<v Speaker 1>to me, the odds should be even closer. I mean,

0:54:17.080 --> 0:54:19.000
<v Speaker 1>this is really kind of a toss up right now

0:54:19.120 --> 0:54:22.400
<v Speaker 1>between Parasite and nineteen seventeen. But I still think in

0:54:22.440 --> 0:54:25.280
<v Speaker 1>the end, nineteen seventeen is going to take it home.

0:54:25.360 --> 0:54:27.480
<v Speaker 1>And you know, part of it again reminds me a

0:54:27.480 --> 0:54:30.400
<v Speaker 1>little bit of Birdman, which had the same concept in

0:54:30.480 --> 0:54:33.240
<v Speaker 1>terms of directing, where it's done to be one long,

0:54:33.400 --> 0:54:39.200
<v Speaker 1>continuous shot. It was really just stunning in every single way.

0:54:39.280 --> 0:54:41.920
<v Speaker 1>So for me, I think in the end, what probably

0:54:41.960 --> 0:54:44.400
<v Speaker 1>happens and it's the favorite. As we talked about for screenplay,

0:54:44.560 --> 0:54:47.719
<v Speaker 1>I think they're going to honor Parasite with Best Screenplay,

0:54:48.320 --> 0:54:51.839
<v Speaker 1>to give a foreign language film Best Picture. I mean,

0:54:52.360 --> 0:54:54.960
<v Speaker 1>they're almost there. The Academy is moving in that direction,

0:54:55.280 --> 0:54:57.359
<v Speaker 1>but for me, I think we're still a little bit

0:54:57.400 --> 0:54:59.200
<v Speaker 1>of a step away from it. That's a big leap.

0:54:59.480 --> 0:55:01.840
<v Speaker 1>So for me, I think I don't love the odds,

0:55:01.840 --> 0:55:03.880
<v Speaker 1>so I wouldn't place a bet on it. And you know,

0:55:04.040 --> 0:55:06.160
<v Speaker 1>I like the odds at Parasite at plus three twenty five,

0:55:06.160 --> 0:55:09.160
<v Speaker 1>which they were much longer, just you know, a week

0:55:09.239 --> 0:55:11.880
<v Speaker 1>or two ago. I think the odds on that are

0:55:11.920 --> 0:55:13.760
<v Speaker 1>better in terms of what I think the actual chances

0:55:13.760 --> 0:55:15.880
<v Speaker 1>of winning are. But I do think in the end

0:55:15.920 --> 0:55:17.759
<v Speaker 1>that nineteen seventeen takes it up.

0:55:18.560 --> 0:55:20.799
<v Speaker 4>I'm sure you're right. Look, I mean it makes sense,

0:55:20.920 --> 0:55:23.640
<v Speaker 4>especially with the split, and especially with Once Upon a

0:55:23.719 --> 0:55:25.239
<v Speaker 4>Time in Hollywood. Like if you look at it, like

0:55:25.760 --> 0:55:29.640
<v Speaker 4>Parasite takes screenplay and then nineteen seventeen takes the other two,

0:55:30.040 --> 0:55:32.680
<v Speaker 4>it's just look at the odds. What's kind of what's

0:55:32.719 --> 0:55:34.840
<v Speaker 4>the point? So I think you got to have a

0:55:34.840 --> 0:55:38.560
<v Speaker 4>little fun for me. I'm going Parasite on Best Picture.

0:55:39.000 --> 0:55:41.200
<v Speaker 4>I'm gonna go Sam Mendez for Best Director, and I'm

0:55:41.239 --> 0:55:43.960
<v Speaker 4>gonna go Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for screenplay,

0:55:44.120 --> 0:55:46.439
<v Speaker 4>just for fun, because hello, I want to win.

0:55:46.760 --> 0:55:47.120
<v Speaker 2>I like it.

0:55:47.719 --> 0:55:50.440
<v Speaker 4>I don't want to bet, you know, one hundred bucks

0:55:50.440 --> 0:55:50.880
<v Speaker 4>to win.

0:55:51.160 --> 0:55:55.680
<v Speaker 1>Two unless it's unless it's Kathy Bits, right, only Kathy Baits. Yeah,

0:55:55.680 --> 0:55:56.400
<v Speaker 1>that's the only exception.

0:55:56.440 --> 0:55:57.879
<v Speaker 4>But I'm betting on her right away, and her odds

0:55:57.920 --> 0:55:58.560
<v Speaker 4>are the best of all.

0:55:58.719 --> 0:56:01.040
<v Speaker 1>No, I completely agree. Well, Long Shot of the Night

0:56:01.120 --> 0:56:02.600
<v Speaker 1>is going to be a revo. That's the one who

0:56:02.640 --> 0:56:05.200
<v Speaker 1>I think could do it. Otherwise, I'm pretty much going

0:56:05.280 --> 0:56:09.040
<v Speaker 1>with the favorites. I think Parasite's gonna win Original Screenplay.

0:56:09.120 --> 0:56:11.000
<v Speaker 1>And again I don't love the odds, you know, minus

0:56:11.000 --> 0:56:13.440
<v Speaker 1>two hundred mendes though for sure, and I do think

0:56:13.520 --> 0:56:15.279
<v Speaker 1>nineteen seventeen is gonna take it. That may be a

0:56:15.280 --> 0:56:16.960
<v Speaker 1>little bit of wishful thinking for me, because I did

0:56:17.040 --> 0:56:20.280
<v Speaker 1>love it. It was my favorite film of the season.

0:56:20.360 --> 0:56:23.359
<v Speaker 1>But it's gonna be interesting. And again, this is something

0:56:23.440 --> 0:56:25.839
<v Speaker 1>you know, we talk about Crash all the time. That's

0:56:25.840 --> 0:56:28.080
<v Speaker 1>like the quintessential, like, wow, we didn't really see that

0:56:28.120 --> 0:56:31.439
<v Speaker 1>coming except you. But remember Moonlight just a few years ago.

0:56:31.560 --> 0:56:34.279
<v Speaker 1>Nobody right, nobody saw that. Everybody thought it was gonna

0:56:34.280 --> 0:56:36.520
<v Speaker 1>be Lalla Aline. So it is something where you know,

0:56:36.640 --> 0:56:40.319
<v Speaker 1>upset time, including Warren Beatty, including Warren bit No, it

0:56:40.400 --> 0:56:42.280
<v Speaker 1>wasn't his fault, all right, They gave him the wrong

0:56:42.680 --> 0:56:45.520
<v Speaker 1>on Belove so whatever. All right, Well, look that is

0:56:45.520 --> 0:56:47.759
<v Speaker 1>going to do it for today's show. Carry Kurpin, thank

0:56:47.760 --> 0:56:50.040
<v Speaker 1>you for coming on. Tell everyone, because I've been talking

0:56:50.080 --> 0:56:52.520
<v Speaker 1>this whole time, and other than our upbringing. Tell everyone

0:56:52.840 --> 0:56:55.399
<v Speaker 1>where they can find you, where they can check you out.

0:56:55.520 --> 0:56:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Tell everybody about yourself.

0:56:57.040 --> 0:56:59.640
<v Speaker 4>Sure you can find me at Carrie Kirpin, just about

0:56:59.600 --> 0:57:02.239
<v Speaker 4>everywhere in the world. You can check out my podcast

0:57:02.440 --> 0:57:06.480
<v Speaker 4>All the Social Ladies, which interviews women in marketing, or

0:57:06.520 --> 0:57:08.760
<v Speaker 4>you can buy my book work at Secrets for Success

0:57:08.800 --> 0:57:11.239
<v Speaker 4>from the Boldest Woman in Business. I do wish they

0:57:11.320 --> 0:57:14.040
<v Speaker 4>had Oscar betting tips there because I could do a

0:57:14.080 --> 0:57:15.960
<v Speaker 4>whole chapter on that and talk about it all day.

0:57:16.000 --> 0:57:18.760
<v Speaker 4>So thank you for indulging me. Dan, this is your

0:57:18.800 --> 0:57:20.200
<v Speaker 4>sister's dream, I know.

0:57:20.200 --> 0:57:23.360
<v Speaker 1>It's my pleasure. Well, we do Oscar odds. Basically, we

0:57:23.520 --> 0:57:26.439
<v Speaker 1>have this entire conversation, just not on a podcast every

0:57:26.480 --> 0:57:29.240
<v Speaker 1>single year. Anyway. This is kind of how our family

0:57:29.280 --> 0:57:32.000
<v Speaker 1>grew up. So hopefully we can have you back next year,

0:57:32.120 --> 0:57:34.480
<v Speaker 1>I hope. So all right, thanks again, thanks again for

0:57:34.520 --> 0:57:36.400
<v Speaker 1>coming on, and I'll see you in a couple of

0:57:36.400 --> 0:57:37.760
<v Speaker 1>weeks when we come down to visit.

0:57:38.360 --> 0:57:38.919
<v Speaker 2>That's right.

0:57:39.440 --> 0:57:42.040
<v Speaker 1>I want to mind everybody about DraftKings, where you can

0:57:42.080 --> 0:57:44.920
<v Speaker 1>place a five dollars wager on any picture to win

0:57:44.960 --> 0:57:48.120
<v Speaker 1>best picture and win fifty dollars if you are correct. Now,

0:57:48.160 --> 0:57:50.240
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure of our schedule going forward here guys,

0:57:50.240 --> 0:57:52.439
<v Speaker 1>but you can always reach me at Dan Harris eighty

0:57:52.480 --> 0:57:55.160
<v Speaker 1>on Twitter if you want to inquire. Until then, enjoy

0:57:55.160 --> 0:57:57.960
<v Speaker 1>the Oscars gear it for some baseball and we'll talk

0:57:58.000 --> 0:58:06.520
<v Speaker 1>to him ten Tebody are never

0:58:08.720 --> 0:58:08.760
<v Speaker 2>T